Catholics Need Not Apply...

...or at least that is how I believe some of the leftist elites in the Senate would have it for the Supreme Court. An article today in the Washington Post, Roberts Hearings Likely to Enter Religious Territory, is filled with a few gems under the cover of "analysis". For instance:

The degree to which Roberts's religious beliefs may inform his judicial philosophy could be a significant line of questioning, especially given that Roberts is replacing Sandra Day O'Connor, a key vote on many contentious social issues.

Aside from the fact that this article is bit dated due to recent events, I had no idea that there was a "Sandra Day O'Connor" chair on the bench requiring nominees to fit exactly into that mold.

Judiciary members who have expressed curiosity about Roberts's religious views include Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), a liberal and a Catholic, and Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), one of the panel's most conservative members. Coburn queried Roberts privately about how his faith influences his work and ran into resistance. "He said, 'I'm very uncomfortable talking about that,' " Coburn told reporters, adding he intended to raise the issue again.

Senators Durbin, Kennedy and Kerry (CINOs) will all get the Catholic label applied to them liberally (no pun intended) during this confirmation. Problem is that given many of their views on different issues, as well as their practices in public life, I question how Catholic they are? I suspect each of them could benefit greatly with some more Catechism classes.

Others do not want to touch it, including Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (Vt.), the committee's ranking Democrat, who also is a Catholic. "Just as we're supposed to be colorblind, we should be religious-blind," he said.

I'll give credit where credit it due. Hopefully this means Senator Leahy doesn't have an equally distasteful strategy that doesn't require the use of religion.

Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which opposes the Roberts nomination, said of Bush's remark, "In a sense we have to presume that he somehow vets people for their religion."

And in a sense, we have to presume that Barry Lynn somehow vets people for their religion.

One way senators could broach the issue would be through a section of the American Bar Association's Model Code of Judicial Conduct that states judges should not preside over cases in which they have a financial "or other" interest. Democrats are debating whether to ask Roberts to interpret the section in the context of a decision by some Catholic bishops last year to refuse Holy Communion to Catholic politicians who support abortion rights. If such a ban were extended to Supreme Court justices, would Roberts consider that a sufficient "other" interest?

This last one is pathetic and many of the CINO-types need to worry about their own standing in the Church vice using a tactic like this. So clearly in their view the so called separation of church and state is one way. Never may a potential justice's religious views enter into his or her rulings but there is no problem with the Senate using religious criteria in its duty to advise and consent on such confirmations.