Bishop Skylstad on Court Nominees

Thanks to Susan for linking to Bishop Skylstad's letter to President Bush regarding Supreme Court nominees.  For what it's worth, I think Amy Welborn is right:  The letter does not indicate an awareness that Justices are not (or, are not supposed to be) legislators.  Their job (in my view) is not, for example, to "restrain[] and end[] the death penalty" (although I would, as MOJ readers know, welcome the end of the death penalty).  As I see it, the job of Justices is to decide cases raising questions about the interpretation and application of legislatively enacted statutes, democratically ratified constitutional provisions, etc. 

So, while I prefer public servants who "support the protection of human life from conception to natural death" to those who do not, I would hope that Bishop Skylstad and his colleagues understand the difference between, on the one hand, the claim that Roe v. Wade was an incorrect interpretation of the Constitution and that courts should therefore uphold local governments' decisions to regulate abortion, and -- on the other hand -- the claim that, because abortion and capital punishment are immoral, Justices should for that reason invalidate some laws and uphold others.

Here, by the way, is Notre Dame law professor Gerry Bradley's reaction to the letter.

Rick