A Litmus Test for Catholic Judges Who Uphold Roe v Wade?

[kerrygoddess]

Denial of Eucharist, A Litmus Test for Catholic Judges Who Uphold Roe v Wade?
August 8th, 2005

Christopher D. Morris is a writer and critic from VT, makes a healthy argument about why the “Catholic bishops threatened to exclude Senator John Kerry from the Eucharist because of his support for Roe v. Wade” should be asked “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.

When judges may derive a financial gain from the outcome of a case before them, they must disqualify themselves; this requirement should be even more urgent when the gain in question is full Communion and the promise of eternal life. According to the American Bar Association’s Code of Conduct for United States Judges, Canon 3, Section C 1 (c), a judge must disqualify himself when he has ‘’a financial interest . . . or any other interest that could be affected substantially by the outcome of the proceeding.” Maintaining one’s membership in the church and the prospect of eternal life surely count as such an interest.

Immanuel Kant held that no decision could be considered impartial or ethical if personal interest in the outcome played any role in it. It is time for this principle to be observed in our judiciary.

Why shouldn’t this same standard hold true for a religious conflict of interest?

Asking the bishops to testify would be healthy. If they rescinded the threats made against Kerry, then Roberts would feel free to make his decision without the appearance of a conflict of interest, and Catholic politicians who support Roe v. Wade would gain renewed confidence in their advocacy. If the bishops repeated or confirmed their threats, the Senate Judiciary Committee should draft legislation calling for the automatic recusal of Catholic judges from cases citing Roe v. Wade as a precedent.

MORE & LINKS - http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=184

[DanCa]

1. Arnold, Guiliani, Frist, and other GOP politicians.

You know if it were fair and unbaised I wouldn't say boo about it. But it seems like they can pick and choose who these rules apply to. And which rules that should be reinforced. Hell they kicked me out because i wouldn't take pictures of women entering abortion clinics, so that those pics could be distributed on anti abortion sites. Yet Arnold and Rudy are pro choice and it's okay. It's also okay for Frist to back stem cell research.

Now lets be fair and if a church is going to expell it's democratic members for not following the rules it should expell all it's members for not following the rules. Hmm I think that would make for one empty church don't you?

[Wabbajack]

4. Great Point

and so obvious I never thought of it!

[kerrygoddess]

5. That's the point made in the article

and beyond that...

[tritsofme]

2. Such a law would probably face much constitutional scrutiny

Under Article VI which states:

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.

[kerrygoddess]

3. Tell that to them!

They are the ones who don't uphold that!

[DanCa]

6. They should just hang a sign that says republicans only

And be done with it.

[kerrygoddess]

7. No kidding...

We can't roll over though.

[DanCa]

9. I agree

But this is a very emotional and personal battle. I mean i can't attend mass with my family on christmass and cant see my niece's plays. Culture of life - flagh the should rename it my way or the high way. Thank god for the episcopal church in town other wise I'd be really screwed.

[Igel]

8. And nobody that is firmly a member of a religion can interpret

the first amendment (because of a conflict of interest--church/state), but neither can anybody that's said they think that the churches should stay out of government.

No woman that's been pregnant or had an abortion, and no male married to or related to a woman that might have or could have an abortion, should be allowed to rule on Roe v Wade or any abortion issue.

Nobody that's likely to use pharmaceuticals, or be affected by their loved ones' use of them, should be allowed to rule in issues affecting the FDA or drugs.

Nobody of any skin color can rule in affirmative action cases--if they're white, they may have a relative lose an advantage, if they're non-white, they may have a relative gain an advantage.

Let's go for "clear" conflict of interest, not a conflict of interest that we might be able to imagine somebody finding themselves in under some circumstance that we will vaguely define later.

And, if I were a bishop, I'd have a very easy response. There's a difference between a legislator saying, "Abortion under these circumstances shall be (il)legal" and a judge pointing to the legislation and saying, "The various laws, as written, indicate that abortions under these circumstances are (il)legal." The one is an act of will, making it so; the second is an act of intellect, finding that others have decreed that it is so.