More confusion on Roberts and Religion

Thanks to Greg Kalscheur for passing on a link to this op-ed, "Stopping a judicial conflict of interest," by Christopher Morris, in today's Boston Globe.  One word:  Argh.

Well, not just one word.  Morris's piece is yet another example of (a) a failure to even acknowledge the distinction between a judge's decision on the meaning and validity of a law and a legislator's decision to promote and pass a law; and, relatedly, (b) the already-tiresome effort to suggest that the Catholic Bishops are somehow required to excommunicate (or threaten to excommunicate) John Roberts if he does not vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.  Morris writes:

IN THE presidential campaign, a new threshold in church-state relations was crossed when Catholic bishops threatened to exclude Senator John Kerry from the Eucharist because of his support for Roe v. Wade. The Senate Judiciary Committee is now fully justified in asking these bishops 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.

Well, they can know, if they get their information about the matter from a source other than Mr. Morris.  Then there's this:

Of course, such a new law should cover anyone whose religion makes it impossible for them to decide on their own whether abortion should be legal; therefore, testimony should be taken from the leaders of Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, and other faiths as well. It is clear that several mainline Protestant denominations separate the issue of abortion from church membership and personal salvation; judges from these faiths would face no conflict of interest.

Even evangelical Protestants do not oppose abortion at the risk of being separated from a particular church, because their faiths are based on being ''born again," not on adherence to certain articles of faith or a catechism. In theory, the same Holy Spirit that made evangelicals born again could also move them to change a social or political view at any time. (In drafting mandatory recusal legislation, senators should probe the foundations of these beliefs and persuade themselves that evangelicals retained a meaningful, not just a technical, choice.) Inquiry into Judaism, Islam, and other religions should also focus on whether any of them make threats against members who hold particular views about abortion.

What is Morris talking about?  Why would an editor at the Boston Globe even entertain the thought that this op-ed contained an argument worthy of such an eminent newspaper?  A final word:  Sigh.

Rick