Petrificus Totalis!
I have stayed clear of the Roberts nomination controversy up to now because on the surface at least the question of Roberts' fitness for the bench hinged on his Catholicism, a topic that I approach with some caution. You see, I'm a Protestant, which is to say I tend to view issues of faith in a relatively straightforward manner, with almost all the big questions settled in the Bible itself. Whatever's left over I just pray over myself and figure God will give me an answer somehow. Catholicism, on the other hand, involves a bewildering array of pronouncements from any of a couple hundred Popes with imposing titles like Petrificus Totalis, or Expecto Patronum or Sectum Sempra.
Oh, wait, those are incantations from the Harry Potter books. But you get the general idea. And it doesn't matter anyway.
To recap, late last month John Roberts met with Senator Dick Durbin (D-Illinois), who asked the Supreme Court nominee what he would do if the law required a ruling that [the Catholic Church] considers immoral -- an interesting question for reasons I'll get to shortly. Roberts reportedly paused and then replied that he would have to recuse himself.
It is by now pretty much settled that the source for this story was Dick Durbin himself, and it is also widely speculated that the exchange did not take place as Durbin reported it. But for sake of discussion, let's assume that the exchange happened just as Durbin reported it.
The story is being taken as evidence of a Democratic hostility towards Catholicism. This is too narrow, because Durbin's problem isn't with the pronouncements of Popes, but with the notion of authority in general. Protestants with their sola scriptura, (which I'm pretty sure is not found in Harry Potter) Jews with the Torah, even Zoroastrians with their Avesta, all could find themselves in the theoretical pickle that Durbin put to Roberts.
The dilemma raised by Durbin also assumes that there is at least some validity to the notion that judges, even on the Supreme Court, are there to interpret existing laws rather than make laws that they themselves deem wise. Without some notion of the law as something distinct from the policy preferences of whoever happens to be sitting on the Supreme Court at the time, there can be no conflict between the law and the moral demands of any deity because the Supreme Court Justice is free to make the law as he sees fit, and who's to stop him or her from consulting whatever god or gods he or she might happen to believe in?
Of course, it would be interesting to find out what answer Sen. Durbin would give: would he say follow your religion and endorse theocracy, or would he say "follow the law" and implicitly endorse conservative legal theory? Or would he follow Roberts and recuse himself?
And if Durbin would recuse himself, here are a couple follow-up questions: Does he believe that it is unwise put place persons with strong religious convictions on the high court because they will be prone to encounter personal conflicts? If not, why do you think this exchange was so important in the first place?
Finally, it might be interesting to find out what sorts of issues Durbin thinks are likely to create a conflict between "settled law" and Roberts' Catholic faith. If there are any plausible answers beyond "abortion" then I'm an alumni of Hogwarts.
Oh, wait, those are incantations from the Harry Potter books. But you get the general idea. And it doesn't matter anyway.
To recap, late last month John Roberts met with Senator Dick Durbin (D-Illinois), who asked the Supreme Court nominee what he would do if the law required a ruling that [the Catholic Church] considers immoral -- an interesting question for reasons I'll get to shortly. Roberts reportedly paused and then replied that he would have to recuse himself.
It is by now pretty much settled that the source for this story was Dick Durbin himself, and it is also widely speculated that the exchange did not take place as Durbin reported it. But for sake of discussion, let's assume that the exchange happened just as Durbin reported it.
The story is being taken as evidence of a Democratic hostility towards Catholicism. This is too narrow, because Durbin's problem isn't with the pronouncements of Popes, but with the notion of authority in general. Protestants with their sola scriptura, (which I'm pretty sure is not found in Harry Potter) Jews with the Torah, even Zoroastrians with their Avesta, all could find themselves in the theoretical pickle that Durbin put to Roberts.
The dilemma raised by Durbin also assumes that there is at least some validity to the notion that judges, even on the Supreme Court, are there to interpret existing laws rather than make laws that they themselves deem wise. Without some notion of the law as something distinct from the policy preferences of whoever happens to be sitting on the Supreme Court at the time, there can be no conflict between the law and the moral demands of any deity because the Supreme Court Justice is free to make the law as he sees fit, and who's to stop him or her from consulting whatever god or gods he or she might happen to believe in?
Of course, it would be interesting to find out what answer Sen. Durbin would give: would he say follow your religion and endorse theocracy, or would he say "follow the law" and implicitly endorse conservative legal theory? Or would he follow Roberts and recuse himself?
And if Durbin would recuse himself, here are a couple follow-up questions: Does he believe that it is unwise put place persons with strong religious convictions on the high court because they will be prone to encounter personal conflicts? If not, why do you think this exchange was so important in the first place?
Finally, it might be interesting to find out what sorts of issues Durbin thinks are likely to create a conflict between "settled law" and Roberts' Catholic faith. If there are any plausible answers beyond "abortion" then I'm an alumni of Hogwarts.
posted by A. at 8:57 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home