More on Catholic judges

Thanks to Rob for linking to the AP piece, which quoted me, on Catholic judges.  I also think, I should say (and did say, to the author of the piece) that a Catholic judge -- like, I would think, any judge -- has a moral duty to avoid doing evil.  So, if playing conscientiously the role of a judge ever put one in a position of having to do or cooperate culpably with evil, I think that one (Catholic or not) should quit the role.

As for Justice Scalia, I have always figured that he was too quick to say -- perhaps he was after dramatic effect? -- that (something like) he was glad that the death penalty was not, in fact, immoral in Church teaching because, if it was, he would have to resign.  I do not think the death penalty's immorality requires faithful judges (or any morally sensitive judges) to quit entirely cases involving or touching on the penalty's application.  As John Garvey and Amy Coney Barrett explained, a while back in a law-review article, it's complicated.

UPDATE:  Over at America, Michael Sean Winters pushes back against Justice Alito (and me), and insists that there should be a Catholic difference, even for judges.  I agree entirely that the faith should (must!) make a difference for legislators, and do not deny that it inevitably (if taken seriously) will make a difference to judging, at least in some contexts.  But, judging is not legislating, and a worthy judge -- including a Catholic judge -- is one who is sensitive to the fact that, in a democracy that aspires to the rule of law, he or she should regard the enforceable content of legislation and constitutional provisions (we are not talking about "common law" judging here) as other-given, not self-made.