Comments on: John Roberts', Catholicism, and Abortion

By: Rob

Rob — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

FD:

First, thanks for taking the time to answer the question. Second, and most pleasantly, you came up with a position that I hadn't thought of. I'd like to tip my hat to you on that.

I need to think about it more. Hopefully I can blog sometime after Vacation Bible School tomorrow.

I'm still not sure a Supreme Court Justice should recuse himself if the law says one thing and his conscience says another.

But let me sleep on it.

By: Funky Dung

Funky Dung — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Perhaps I was unclear. Belief in that a right is reserved by the Constitution is not the same as believing that the right should continue to be protected. To have a right to do something does not mean it is right to do. Believing that the right should remain unchallenged is the problem. Also, just because a right is protected does not mean it cannot be limited in reasonable ways. Free speech, for instance, is limited when public safety is concerned.

By: John

John — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Why is it permissable for a judge to believe that the Constitution protects a right to choose but not a legislator?

By: Funky Dung

Funky Dung — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

I'm not sure he should either. In fact, as I stated in the post, I don't think he'd need to. He could quite comfortably rule on the constitutionality of abortion without running afoul of the Church. He'd have to word his opinion carefully, though.