Apparently Justice Roberts said that he would recuse himself if the law required him to rule in a way such that the act of ruling would be considered by his church as the commission of an immoral act. That's quite a bit different from the mess of pottage of a summary that we see in the Times, but what can you expect from such a tabloid?

A bit more discussion here.

Now if we can get Eddie Haskell to agree to the same.....

Willingness to recuse himself from a case where he must rule against his conscience is an excellent reason to confirm him. He is a judge, not a politician, and this means he is a moral one.

That does not mean he wouldn't overturn Roe v Wade because it has no grounds in the constitution.

His job will be to make decisions, based on law. I don't think he should accept the job if he is unwilling to perform its duties. What kind of "conscience" is it to accept the salary and refuse to do the job.

In the coming months he should refuse to speculate on hypothetical recusal senarios. Randall, all we are asking of any Judge is that he tell us what the law is (as applied to the particular facts of the case), not what he thinks it should be.

Agree with Hman and thank John Thacker for the clarification.

Being President is a position of greater responsibility, though fortunately not a lifetime office, and apparently the Democrats were willing to entrust it to JFK and JFK lite with Lieberman as backup.

And while I'm at it, why not limit the Justices tenure to the lifetime expectency of the 1790's.

h-man, that is what he will do -- if he must judge according to law, but against conscience, he recuses himself. It is no different than recusing himself in a case involving his own family.

He is saying that he will never judge against the law or the constitution. This is a great thing and should be applauded. I don't believe that "liberal" judges would ever say such a thing. If a law goes against their "liberal" bias or predilections, they strike down the law, they don't recuse themselves. That is how Roe v Wade was decided.

The president is an elected official. He acts according to conscience and *makes* law.

A judge is different. No moral judge would say anything different than Roberts has said. He is exactly the kind of judge who will remain true to the constitution, even if it means recusing himself to do so.

Genecis,

Because even back then it didn't stop a two-bit egocentric hack like John Marshall from being in office entirely too long.

Somehow, I don't think the 'John Roberts is a Catholic extremist' line is going to inure to the benefit of a party that has benefitted from Catholic animosity towards and fear of Evangelican Protestants for the last 3 decades.

The Constitution can't be in conflict with morality.

"Give to Rome what is Rome's, and give to God what is God's"

The Constitution is not the last word in morality, it wasn't supposed to be. Government is a necessary evil, it shouldn't be looked to to define morality.

This split loyalty question about Catholics has a rich lineage in American politics. Funny that people like Ted Kennedy would be trying to resurrect it, it was used against his brother.

"For our citizenship is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ." (Php 3:20)

You have a higher opinion of the Constitution than some, Orrin. The only alternative is for Christians to stay out of politics, which would hurt the irreligious even more than the religious, I'm afraid.

Randall:

By its own terms the Constitution can not contravene Judeo-Christian morality.

Alan Keyes? ROTFL. You talked him up in 2004 non-stop and he got walloped. He's a joke, not a contender.

In the link I posted, Professor Althouse has some excerpts from a Justice Scalia speech where he attempts to outline the difference between what he believes would be the commission of an immoral act, and what would not be. For example, he offers that even if he believes abortion is wrong, it is not an immoral act to refuse to rule that the unborn are protected as "persons" under the 14th Amendment, and thus protected from abortion. Thus, he could and would refuse to vote to overturn a state law legalizing all abortions on demand.

He contrasts this with handing down a sentence of capital punishment, which he views as acting as part of the essential machinery of government and as commiting an act. In that case, he believes that someone who thinks that capital punishment is sinful would be right to recuse themself.

"By its own terms the Constitution cannot contravene Judeo-Christian morality."

Pray tell OJ, how is this so?

I hope he didn't say that. His personal or religious beliefs can't color his decisions.
He's there to rule on the law, not to judge it.

I can't see how he can be confirmed if that's what he really means.

erp -- How can they color his decisions if he recuses himself?

oj -- Morality is one thing, conscience is another. This is the essence of the argument between Peter and Paul in the church at Jerusalem.

It is possible for a law not to contravene the constitution but cross one's conscience -- even if the law or the constitution is not immoral.

It may be rare, but recusing himself in that particular instance is a brave and honorable thing to do. It is the fundamental reason a man like Roberts will not "rule from the bench".

If the law is not immoral then there's no problem.

Exactly.

That's why saints are often crucified but will later judge the world (1 Co 6:2). Roberts is fortunate to be serving his nation under Bush rather than England under Elizabeth.

I doubt he'll be crucified for striking down an immoral law.

It's the job of a Supreme Court justice to make decisions, not to recuse himself. If Roberts can't separate his personal beliefs from his professional ability to decide on the issues brought before the court, he should have let the president know that, so he could have nominated someone else.

If this information gets out to the public, I think it will be a deal breaker.