From a WSJ Opinion Journal article, Catholics Need Not Apply :
Best of the Web Today / BY JAMES TARANTO / Tuesday, August 9, 2005 3:51 p.m.Catholics Need Not Apply
No one seriously argues anymore that Roe v. Wade was correctly decided. Rather, pro-Roe advocates rest their case on policy grounds (warnings about coat alleys and back hangers, etc.) or, when they must argue the law, on the power of precedent. Of the five Supreme Court justices who more or less upheld Roe in the 1992 case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, three went out of their way to avoid endorsing the decision, emphasizing instead the allegedly high cost of the court's admitting a mistake:
A decision to overrule Roe's essential holding under the existing circumstances would address error, if error there was, at the cost of both profound and unnecessary damage to the Court's legitimacy, and to the Nation's commitment to the rule of law. It is therefore imperative to adhere to the essence of Roe's original decision, and we do so today.A jaw-dropping op-ed piece in today's Boston Globe suggests that these three justices got it exactly wrong. One Christopher D. Morris, "a writer and critic in Northfield, Vt.," argues that the Senate Judiciary Committee should subject the Catholic Church, and Catholic jurists, to special scrutiny: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.In other words, in order to preserve the bogus constitutional right to abortion, it is necessary to disregard the actual constitutional provisions for church-state separation and against religious tests for officeholders. It's yet another reason why Roe must go. [emphasis added]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. . . .
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 If they rescinded the threats made against Kerry, then Roberts would feel free to make his decision without the appearance of a conflict of interest, and Catholic politicians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.
