Catholic Bishops should hold Justices to same standards as Kerry...

[kerrygoddess]

Denial of Eucharist, A Litmus Test for Catholic Judges Who Uphold Roe v Wade?
August 8th, 2005

Christopher D. Morris is a writer and critic from VT, makes a healthy argument about why the “Catholic bishops threatened to exclude Senator John Kerry from the Eucharist because of his support for Roe v. Wade” should be asked “whether the same threats would apply to Supreme Court nominee Judge Roberts, if he were to vote to uphold Roe v. Wade.”

The bishops have made this question legitimate because Americans no longer know whether a Catholic judge can hear abortion cases without an automatic conflict of interest.

When judges may derive a financial gain from the outcome of a case before them, they must disqualify themselves; this requirement should be even more urgent when the gain in question is full Communion and the promise of eternal life. According to the American Bar Association’s Code of Conduct for United States Judges, Canon 3, Section C 1 (c), a judge must disqualify himself when he has ‘’a financial interest . . . or any other interest that could be affected substantially by the outcome of the proceeding.” Maintaining one’s membership in the church and the prospect of eternal life surely count as such an interest.

Immanuel Kant held that no decision could be considered impartial or ethical if personal interest in the outcome played any role in it. It is time for this principle to be observed in our judiciary.

Why shouldn’t this same standard hold true for a religious conflict of interest?

Asking the bishops to testify would be healthy. If they rescinded the threats made against Kerry, then Roberts would feel free to make his decision without the appearance of a conflict of interest, and Catholic politicians who support Roe v. Wade would gain renewed confidence in their advocacy. If the bishops repeated or confirmed their threats, the Senate Judiciary Committee should draft legislation calling for the automatic recusal of Catholic judges from cases citing Roe v. Wade as a precedent.

MORE & LINKS - http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=184

[ginnyinWI]

1. It's very simple to me

...after hearing Mario Cuomo speak on this last weekend. The question has to be:
Which comes first with you--your religion or the U.S. Constitution? If it is not the Constitution, then the person should not be a judge.

I believe that Catholics like Kerry put the Constitution first. If it is law, then they will uphold it. If it is a bad law, work to change it--but that should and will be done with a consensus of legislators, not any one individual. An individual judge doesn't have the right to let his religion have priority when it conflicts with written law.