Turley lays down his God Card

UPDATE: This carrying on about other people’s religion is becoming a very bad habit. Here is Ted Kennedy “not talking” about Mitt Romney’s Mormonism.

It would be all-too predictable if I were to go on a rant about this article by Jonathan Turley wherein he basically lets the cat out of the bag and reveals the position of the left on religion, specifically on those troublesome Catholics and other Christians, that is: It’s okay to be Catholic, as long as you disagree with the Church. It’s okay to be Christian as long as it’s some sort of civilized Christianity wholly aligned with the times.

In other words, One may be religious so long as one agrees to live the age throughout one’s faith, and not the other way around.

SCOTUS nominee John Roberts is the first such nominee I can recall whose religious beliefs have fallen under scrutiny, have given cause for “concern.” (Although Schumer and the Judiciary Committee did have a “practice run” on Bill Pryor).

Turley is “concerned” because when asked by Sen. Durbin what he would do should a case come before the court which conflicted with his religious beliefs to some degree, Roberts answered that he might have to recuse himself.

Turley finds this troubling, although he did not seem at all troubled last year when folks on the left were demanding that Antonin Scalia recuse himself on the hearing of (forgive me I don’t remember which case) something before the court.

Seems to me if a judge has a moral or ethical conflict regarding a case before him or her, recusing oneself is the right option – but then, I am no expert on this stuff. Nevertheless, Turley is “troubled.”

Cassandra at Villainous Company, who takes pains to disclose right off the bat that she is not terribly religious, (and which thus gives her a sharper credibility, here, I think) is “troubled” too…by Turley.

…does the questioner imagine that only men (and women) of faith have scruples? That only Roman Catholics might find themselves facing questions of conscience? I think most atheists, not to mention Protestants, might find that premise highly insulting.

How is it that we have come to equate Catholicism with unfitness for public office? Or is it perhaps really “strongly-held beliefs” that those with a “flexible urban viewpoint” find make one uniquely unfit to ascend to a higher position?

Are we now willing only to confirm those who affirm nothing? Who have no “settled judicial philosophy”? Who will rid us of these inconvenient principles?

UPDATE: Maxed Out Mama also writes well on this, and brings up a constitutional citation that may come back to bite Durbin:

I think Durbin may be getting into deep constitutional water here. As to abortion (which the LA Times implies is the main issue), the truth is that nothing about a woman’s right to abort a pregnancy is explicitly stated in the Constitution, and many judges who privately feel women should have the right don’t think Roe V. Wade was decided correctly as a matter of law. It certainly was a stretch of the Constitution, at any rate. So if Roberts did fail to uphold Roe V. Wade, he would have a perfectly valid legal rationale, and it is one that other judges on the court share.

If a question such as this is only asked with reference to religion (and not the individual’s conscience) then I think it would violate the “no religious test” contained in Article VI of the Constitution:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

But if the question is asked in the generic form with reference to an individual’s conscience (and don’t try to lie and tell me that an atheist or an agnostic doesn’t have one), can you imagine any thoughtful person who would not have to answer something along the lines of Roberts’ answer? The people have the ability to amend the Constitution, so a judge is not in control of that document. I can’t think of anyone who believes in actually enforcing the Constitution as it is, rather than their idea of what the Constitution should be, who might not, at least theoretically, run into such a dilemma. I don’t think we want to confine ourselves to the thoughtless, the liars or the people who believe they can make it up as they go along.

Betsy Newmark has more.