Balkinization: Not Catholic Enough?

Not Catholic Enough?

Mark Graber

Liberals concerned with Judge John Roberts might act on the basis of deeply held Catholic values when deciding whether to overrule Roe v. Wade might consider the virtues of having Judge Roberts act on Catholic values in other areas of the law. The Catholic church, after all, opposes capital punishment, has little good to say about our adventures in Iraq, particularly the torture issue, and is committed to far greater economic redistribution than takes place in the United States. I'm not Catholic (or even Christian), and I gather that there may be a difference in the nature of Catholic opposition to abortion and Catholic opposition to capital punishment. Still, if Judge Roberts took his orders from the Pope, I suspect he might frequently vote differently than he actually does and will.

One interesting question is how both the left and the right would react to a judicial nominee who they believed would overrule Roe, Griswold v. Connection, Lawrence v. Texas, and every decision sustaining capital punishment, as well as provide far greater protection for welfare rights and far stricter judicial supervision of torture than is presently the case. The other point is that Catholocism seems as interpretable as the constitution. Both Roberts and John Kerry and probably sincere Catholics yet they bring very different values to the public sphere (in this light one might note that Frank Murphy and William Brennan, possibly the two most liberal justices of the 20th century were Catholics). Simply saying one is a person of faith, therefore, says no more about one's values that the claim that one will not legislative from the bench. Roberts is not conservative because he is Catholic. Rather, he interprets Catholocism and the constitution in a certain way because he is a conservative. It is those conservative values that need exploring, not his religious faith.

Posted 11:05 AM by Mark Graber [link]

Comments:

Mark,

Thanks for your post.

I'd like to see more judicious use of the term "conservative." Continuing to refer to corporate pimps like Roberts as 'conservatives' gives them a legitimacy and a mainstream acceptability they do not deserve.

I realize that we're talking semantics here, but IMHO it's a big deal. An entire faux-fascist movement is being built under the guise of conservatism.

# posted by

peter : 1:37 PM

Well, I'd like to see more judicious use of the word "pimp" than we see here.

# posted by

sean : 1:54 PM

I guess I need to make points more clearly. My comment was intended not to raise questions about whether Roberts should substitute Catholic values for constitutional values, but simply to note that a) if he did his conclusions would sometimes be liberal as well as conservative, and then b) to suggest that the way people in good faith interpret religious and constitutional scripture seems influenced by deeper vaue commitments.

# posted by

Mark Graber : 4:28 PM

mjh21 makes a fair point that liberals will not be appalled at judges who use, among other factors, their own faith to reach a decision, provided they agree with it. i dare say that the same standard applies to conservatives. it all goes back to a post i made several weeks ago when i said that i never saw anyone who screamed that a decision was an unconscionable exercise of judicial activism when they agreed with the result. to say that this only happens on the liberal side of things (and it does) is to be entirely disingenuous and self-righteous.

# posted by

phg : 6:32 PM

"Roberts is not conservative because he is Catholic. Rather, he interprets Catholocism and the constitution in a certain way because he is a conservative."

Reminds me of Plato's "Euthyphro." Which does Robert hold to be true?

p is good because it is pleasing to God.
or
p is pleasing to God because it is good.

Religion cannot add any normative content to that attainable through man's own heart. Revelation can merely confirm that which the heart is already telling us.

# posted by

Faust : 10:42 AM