Catholic recusal

August 12, 2005 9:46 AM

Should Catholic Justices recuse themselves from any case citing Roe v. Wade? Now that Catholic politicians have been threatened with having sacraments withheld for supporting Roe v. Wade, does this create an inherent conflict of interest for a Catholic Supreme Court justice (or any judge) in a case involving Roe? 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."
posted by caddis (63 comments total)

ugh.
posted by ChasFile at 9:50 AM on August 12, 2005

I think this is an excellent point. Government is supposed to be a secular institution (insert "separation of church and state" derail here), and this is probably the most obvious example of religion interfering in the process. Gay marriage and values are one thing, but a straight-up condemnation from the Church draws the line very clearly.
posted by themadjuggler at 10:29 AM on August 12, 2005

Are there laws against pressuring justices to act in favor of one party? Blackmail is probably too strong a word, right? Where's the line?

If this occurred during an election, there would be legal recourse, right?
posted by joegester at 10:35 AM on August 12, 2005

Oh what an excellent idea. If you're going to require disqualification for " or any other interest that could be affected substantially," then why stop with "Catholic Justices"?

We should create a national database of judges and their religions, plus a list of reasons their clergy might punish them for decisions. Then all we have to do is see if the case could somehow impact their relationship with their religious community, and disqualify them.

Jewish Justices might be disqualified in cases involving circumcision, Muslim Justices would be disqualified in cases involving women's rights...

You are brilliant!
posted by reality at 10:45 AM on August 12, 2005

It's fairly clear what will happen here. Catholic justices who disagree with the church on the and yet do not wish to incur the condemnation of the Vatican will recuse themselves; Catholic justices who agree with the church will probably say so and say why in their decisions, although they probably oughtn't mention the church. And this is as it should be.

Catholics, Protestants, Atheists, et cetera-- all have their own legitimate views about right and wrong which are not nullified by their membership in a church or social group. A judge, or a voter, or a citizen, has a say because of those positions-- secular positions granted without regard to religious standing-- and not because they are chosen by religious authorities. So long as those rights are granted freely by the state, not the church, religious freedom and separation is maintained, no matter what the "religious" or "non-religious" content of any person's opinion may be.
posted by Viomeda at 10:49 AM on August 12, 2005

It's not just religion--Scalia goes hunting with Cheney, and then ruled on a case involving him. There are many conflicts of interest that should cause judges to recuse themselves, but sadly, they usually don't. Unfortunately, there's no recourse or punishment. When it comes to religion, if they explicitly state that their faith is more important than the law, they should be removed from that job.

I'd like to see recusing yourself applied to other fields too--it keeps people more honest.
posted by amberglow at 10:50 AM on August 12, 2005

If a justice is a strong supporter of civil rights, in part because of his religion, ought he recuse himself from civil rights cases?
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 10:52 AM on August 12, 2005

"...with the church on the issue and yet do not..."
posted by Viomeda at 10:52 AM on August 12, 2005

If a judge is using religion as a basis for ruling on anything and not laws and the Constitution, he should be removed from his job.
posted by amberglow at 10:55 AM on August 12, 2005

From the link: 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.

Maybe judges have a conflict of interests, but legislating an "automatic recusal" is clearly a violation of the First Amendment. Name one other law, that has survived judicial review, that prohibits members of any specific religion, serving as any kind of appointed or elected official, from doing any particular thing. Next up [as noted above, on preview] would be that Jewish judges can't participate in any case involving pigs, pork, shellfish and the like, because look what the rabbis say about that.

Not to mention, how do you define a "Catholic judge" -- would the law exempt lapsed, non-practicing Catholics? If so, what would the test be?

This is such a non-starter I'm surprised the Globe printed it. There seems to be an implication in the column that maybe if the bishops are called to testify to the Judiciary Committee the injunction against serving the Eucharist to pro-choice politicians might be rescinded, but this is equally a non-starter; the bishops are not about to cave in to political pressure.
posted by beagle at 11:01 AM on August 12, 2005

Jewish Justices might be disqualified in cases involving circumcision, Muslim Justices would be disqualified in cases involving women's rights...

All justices, in their capacity as justices, should be secular. In their decisions, they should only take into account the body of discourse informed by science and observations about the way people actually behave. The shouldn't be acting on what some religious text says people do/should do, unless the relevant part of the text is backed up by the aforementioned science/observation, in which case it's redundant anyway and still shouldn't be considered, especially given the potential for bias that way in a religious judge.

This would be the case even if religion (I'm looking at you especially, Judeo-Christianity) weren't just the calcified beliefs of a bunch of violent ancient desert patriarchs.
posted by Drexen at 11:01 AM on August 12, 2005

Wow. This is good. Very good.
posted by mikeinclifton at 11:01 AM on August 12, 2005

violent ancient desert patriarchs

And yes, I did just reserve that band-name.
posted by Drexen at 11:05 AM on August 12, 2005

The difference here is the importance of the sacraments for a Catholic and the withholding of them for ruling in contravention of the Church. The Justice ruling against the Church stands to lose something of value. This is where the conflict of interest lies, not merely in the conflict of ideas.
posted by caddis at 11:07 AM on August 12, 2005

So, Caddis, what's to be done? Do you agree with legislation prohibiting Catholic judges from hearing cases involving abortion?
posted by beagle at 11:10 AM on August 12, 2005

Drexen: "In their decisions, they should only take into account the body of discourse informed by science and observations about the way people actually behave."

On a side-issue: politics is one of the realms in which science has spectacularly, monumentally, dramatically failed. If you don't believe me, look at what's happened over the last century: more violence, death, and bloodshed (without the help of religious zealotry) than ever before. Political science? There's no such thing. In politics, action can only be justified by a knowledge of justice, which doesn't come from scientific observation any more than it comes from religion.

Now, it's easy to avoid having the Church dictate judicial decisions: judges who feel conflicted will recuse themselves. If a judge agrees with the church, he (as always) must give a good reason besides something like "the church says so." As always, "the church says so" decisions don't really stand up to review. And, as always, it's sometimes perfectly legitimate to agree with the church; you just have to give a good reason for doing so that has reference to justice and to the constitution.
posted by Viomeda at 11:14 AM on August 12, 2005

Isn't the Catholic Church is risking its nonprofit status by expressing a political opinion? As I learned it, the separation of church and state goes both ways; the state can't have an opinion on religion, and religion can't have an opinion on the state. Can't they lose their special protections from taxation by interfering in politics?
posted by Malor at 11:15 AM on August 12, 2005

Hey Drexen... it's called: sarcasm.

This is an overwhelmingly stupid idea, and completely impractical, not to mention overtly discriminatory. Are they implying that only "Catholic Judges" are unable to exercise their profession competently, but somehow judges of other persuasions can?

And hey, if you're all worried about "calcified beliefs", why stop at religion? Let's disqualify judges who secretly hold Communist sympathies, lest they be expelled from the May Day parades.
posted by reality at 11:21 AM on August 12, 2005

No one whose religious beliefs or attachments would keep them from honoring the letter and spirit of the separation of church and state should serve in any position of power and authority the US government or any of its state or local governments at all, period. (What is "putting a fox in charge of the henhouse"?)
posted by davy at 11:34 AM on August 12, 2005

It's not about their sympathies. Every judge has different biases and sympathies. It is about whether they have something of value to them on the line when they rule. For instance if they hold a lot of stock in Microsoft would they rule in Microsoft's favor in a huge anti-trust case rather than have the value of their stock decline? They would recuse themselves in this instance. Here they have the ability to continue participation in their Church on the line. Recuse?
posted by caddis at 11:35 AM on August 12, 2005

So, if there's a court case between a church and a secular organization, should Athiest judges be recused?
posted by unreason at 11:39 AM on August 12, 2005

"Should Catholic Justices recuse themselves from any case citing Roe v. Wade?"

No. Ok, next post...
posted by j.p. Hung at 11:40 AM on August 12, 2005

Malor: Non-profit organizations (religious or not) are only prohibited from endorsing or opposing political candidates. They may talk about political issues as much as they like.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 11:51 AM on August 12, 2005

I'd like to see recusing yourself applied to other fields too--it keeps people more honest.

Do you want to see gay judges recused from gay-rights cases? A judge might refrain from making a correct anti-gay ruling if he thinks his partner might withhold sex.
posted by Kwantsar at 11:52 AM on August 12, 2005

Do you want to see gay judges recused from gay-rights cases?

Excellent idea! And in that vain, let's recuse female judges from abortion cases because they obviously have a conflict of interest too.
posted by sbutler at 11:54 AM on August 12, 2005

This is the most asinine thing I've seen on the front page for a while...

Here they have the ability to continue participation in their Church on the line. Recuse?

Not quite. Aside from some priests who want to get their names in the news (and do as much damage to Catholicism as al Quaeda does to Islam), the majority wouldn't withhold communion from a Justice (or from Kerry, or anyone else) who supported abortion.

Or perhaps all justices should recuse themselves on Roe vs. Wade because, after all, they could all have potentially been aborted...

Or perhaps all female justices should recuse themselves on Roe vs. Wade because, after all, they could all potentially have abortions.
posted by NotMyselfRightNow at 11:56 AM on August 12, 2005

What about the Catholic church's stance on invading Iraq?
Did that slow any "good Catholic" public officials down?
[I'm looking straight at Rick "doggydo" Santorum]
Your belief system should not impact your interpretation of law. And Scalia needs to learn that.
posted by nofundy at 12:14 PM on August 12, 2005

If men could have babies abortion would quickly become a sacrament.
posted by nofundy at 12:15 PM on August 12, 2005

Yes, they should. If people would RTFA, or for that matter RTFFPP, they would see that this has nothing to do with what beliefs a judge holds, religious or otherwise, and everything to do with a religious body threatening its members who are judges.

Hypothetical question: If some person or institution threatened a judge with physical harm if he or she ruled a certain way, and that threat was credible, should the judge recuse? I am given to understand that practicing Catholics take the sacrament pretty seriously, and would see its being withheld as an injury. How can that possibly not be seen as a conflict of interest?
posted by aaronetc at 12:17 PM on August 12, 2005

I did RTFA, and it's not about judges recusing themselves, it's suggesting the Judiciary Committee start legislating on the basis of someone's religion.
posted by beagle at 12:26 PM on August 12, 2005

Should the judges recuse themselves in such a situation? If they should but refuse, should legislation be prepared to address the situation? Do existing guidelines or laws already address this? Bear in mind that avoiding conflict of interest is one of the most important ethical considerations for judges.
posted by caddis at 12:46 PM on August 12, 2005

That's what I asked you before, caddis. The threat of legislation here is just as problematic (First Amendment issues, legislating what members of a particular religion can and can't do) as the fact that judges may have a religiously-derived conflict (whether it's a bishop or a mullah that's threatening them with retaliation within the faith). The suggested legislation will not withstand judicial review. The only way to deal with this is for judges to either recuse, or publicly state that the threats of their clergy will not affect their judgment (clearly the position of Kerry, Cuomo and others).
posted by beagle at 1:00 PM on August 12, 2005

A law requiring automatic recusal is clearly a very bad idea, if not a violation of Art. III of the Constitution.

But federal judiciary nominees should absolutely be asked about the function of their religious beliefs in their jurisprudence, which is a very different matter from forced recusal.
posted by footnote at 1:12 PM on August 12, 2005

How soon we forget. Anyone recall that some felt JFK should not be President because he was Catholic instead of Protestant? Remember idiotic prejudicial notions like "He'll be taking orders from the Pope!"?

Let's say a judge rules on something related to roe v wade one way or the other. Are we actually entertaining the idea that if we can somehow magically determine the judge was affected (on balance) in this ruling by a secular book read last week then their decision is valid because it was well-considered and if instead their ruling is swayed (on balance) by something they learned in church it's not because then by definition they weren't thinking for themselves?

This is the very essence of prejudice, no? Catholic justices will rule against roe v wade since they are too stupid, brainwashed, ignorant, foolish, cowardly, whatever to do otherwise. See we know they are because they're Catholic...
posted by scheptech at 1:16 PM on August 12, 2005

Do you want to see gay judges recused from gay-rights cases? A judge might refrain from making a correct anti-gay ruling if he thinks his partner might withhold sex.

Bad metaphor. He could always just find another partner. But once you're excommunicated from the Catholic church for making a ruling it doesn't like, that's pretty much it, unless you want to take up Scientology or join the Moonies.
posted by Rothko at 1:25 PM on August 12, 2005

If a judge cannot make a decision without appealing to their faith, then yes, they should recuse themselves. But if a judge can make a decision based on the law and their interpretation of the law, then no, they shouldn't. Unfortunately, people are never in a good position to determine whether they are personally biased.
Still, this is dumb. Right problem, wrong remedy.
posted by klangklangston at 1:29 PM on August 12, 2005

The judges are not so much what is to be focused upon here, rather than the church itself. They have actively threatened to expel members due to political beliefs. Admittedly, the core of the debate, Roe vs. Wade, is important both in politics and in church business.

However, when church business infringes upon government business, and they not only wish to impact the government, but dictate the actions of government officials, they cross a dangerous line.

Not to mention there's plenty of other Biblical commands that the churches fail to enforce. Where's the excommunication of anyone who works on Sunday, for example?
posted by Saydur at 1:30 PM on August 12, 2005

To me the interesting question is not whether new and specific legislation should be enacted. Statutes, in particular 28 U.S.C. § 455, provide for recusal should the judge's impartiality be reasonably questioned or when he has a financial or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding. Is a threat of withholding sacraments sufficient? What about excommunication? Right now such a threat is possible, yet not specific. The actions against Kerry could be interpretted as merely political grandstanding. I would guess now that the election is over he has no problem receiving communion. Does he? What if the threat were made specific, i.e. the Bishops in DC and the Justices' home dioceses threatened them with withholding of the sacraments or excommunication (and for argument's sake assume the Pope backed them up)? Would those Justices have to recuse themselves? I do not think the answer is at all clear and that is what makes this an interesting issue.
posted by caddis at 1:30 PM on August 12, 2005

A gay judge or a straight judge has only to use the Constitution and existing law to make his decisions. His or her own sexuality shouldn't have any bearing on the case, just as a Catholic judge's religious faith shouldn't have any bearing on any case.

This is just like the pharmacist thing, where they're refusing to dispense birth control because of their religious beliefs. It's against the contract, expectations, and duties of their job, and the same goes for judges. We don't have Christian courts or Islamic courts or Jewish courts. We have one court system for all Americans, and they have to be free from any religious dictates.
posted by amberglow at 1:41 PM on August 12, 2005

If they are going to refuse to give communion to Catholic politicians who support Roe, then they better refuse to give communion to those who also supported the Iraq war and also support the death penalty.

Both of those were strongly opposed by the JP II as well as being opposed by Pope Ratz.

If you're going to tow the Catholic party line, then you better tow all of it.
posted by Relay at 1:46 PM on August 12, 2005

This whole question is really the God versus Caesar question that Jesus addressed as follows (Luke 20):

So they asked him, "Teacher, we know that you speak and teach rightly, and show no partiality, but truly teach the way of God. Is it lawful for us to give tribute to Caesar, or not?" But he perceived their craftiness, and said to them, "Show me a denarius. Whose likeness and inscription does it have?" They said, "Caesar's." He said to them, "Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." And they were not able in the presence of the people to catch him in what he said, but marveling at his answer they became silent.

Good for both bishops and judges to ponder.
posted by beagle at 1:47 PM on August 12, 2005

This is the memo written by Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, ordering priest to refuse Communion to anyone, in particular meaning politicians, guilty of "consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws." It does not appear to have been withdrawn. Accordingly, it would appear to apply to a Supreme Court Justice who votes to uphold Roe.
posted by caddis at 1:56 PM on August 12, 2005

Bad metaphor. He could always just find another partner.

Maybe he loves his partner and doesn't want to have sex with anyone but him. Sounds like major potential influence to me. Or are we suggesting gay people are automatically promiscuous and only form relationships for sex.

I do not think the answer is at all clear and that is what makes this an interesting issue.

It's interesting because it can be so easily generalized. Clearly anyone may be influenced by anything including financial interests, love interests, family connections, alumni from schools attended, favorite authors, yada yada. Where do you draw the line? I'd suggest potential criminality must be involved somehow. Is it a crime to rule on cases based on your personal financial interests? I think so, maybe insider trading or something? Is it a crime to be a Catholic? No, not at this point.

Re Catholicism, you all are aware many Catholics (these people are Christians) join Protestant churches (these people are also Christians) and worship that way due to exactly this concept of excommunication, no? In other words, from a religious perspective, choice and free will do in fact exist. Protestants do not believe any man, including the Pope, may mediate in such a way between an individual and his or her God. So the religious situation itself is not necessarily as black and white as all that either.
posted by scheptech at 2:01 PM on August 12, 2005

Caddis - there's a very important distinction between 28 U.S.C. § 455 and what's being proposed in the article. The current law requires a judge to recuse himself. Recusal is generally self-enforcing, although a party to the litigation can make a motion for recusal and this motion would be reviewable on appeal in lower federal courts. The proposed law would mean automatic recusal, which is a very different creature.

Supreme Court Justices' decisions on recusal are not reviewable (The Cheney Duck Hunt Case), which is troubling. But the answer is definitely not automatic recusal.
posted by footnote at 2:17 PM on August 12, 2005

a party to the litigation can make a motion for recusal

Also interesting, the stuff you learn on mefi... Judging the judge, hmm. So lawyers can do judge selection sorta like they do jury selection?. Where does the buck stop then, other than convention or peer pressure, I wonder what actually limits an otherwise exhaustive search for the 'right' judge?
posted by scheptech at 2:42 PM on August 12, 2005

Now that the Roman Catholic church has decided to enter the political arena should it have its tax-free status rescinded?
posted by clevershark at 2:47 PM on August 12, 2005

Ding. I can't believe the Globe published this column either.
posted by mrgrimm at 3:05 PM on August 12, 2005

"If you're going to tow the Catholic party line, then you better tow all of it."

Not to derail, but GOLLY can people please get this figure of speech right? It's "TOE the line." As in, there's a line on the floor in front of you, and you stay behind it - with your toes just behind the line.

Cite 1

Cite 2

*Phoo!*

This has been a friendly reminder from your neighborhood Grammar Police. Please resume your enjoyment of the thread.
posted by zoogleplex at 3:07 PM on August 12, 2005

Scheptech -- The party makes the motion, but the judge can deny it, so it's not really like jury selection where some jurors can be dismissed for no reason at all.

Here's one case you can read about recusal, which interprets the law Caddis mentioned earlier. It's about the trial judge in the Oklahoma City bombing case, who was ordered recused by the higher court after Nichols appealed the trial judge's refusal to recuse himself. (The trial judge's chambers were in the federal building Nichols was charged with blowing up...)

On the flip side, here's a case where the trial judge's refusal to recuse himself was upheld. The party was trying to claim that the fact that the judge called her a "housewife" was evidence of gender bias.

(*for the law geeks out there, it's interesting to see how both appeals courts got around the procedural technicalities in order to immediately review the motions.)
posted by footnote at 3:10 PM on August 12, 2005

It's interesting because it can be so easily generalized.

Perhaps. Sometimes the generalities are interesting. However, this is a very interesting particular situation. It fits in many ways into the existing recursion rules, but there are arguments to the contrary, and it is an issue of high importance to society. What will be said when a case to overturn Roe comes up with a plethora of Catholics on the court and a pope who has already indicated that the Catholic church should punish politicians and others who politically disagree with them. The specifics of this situation far outweigh the generics in interest.
posted by caddis at 3:23 PM on August 12, 2005

Automatic recusal is a good idea. And it really would help people, because connections not now known would become known--it's like a Sunshine Law, but for the judiciary. For all the badmouthing of the judiciary by the right lately (except when they rule the way they want them to), it is weird that that branch of government is not self-correcting at all.
posted by amberglow at 3:32 PM on August 12, 2005

Now that the Roman Catholic church has decided to enter the political arena should it have its tax-free status rescinded?

The RC Church has been one on the most political organizations in existence for a long time. The history of The Church is tightly interwoven with that of European history at a very worldly level (e.g. the popes had their own military at one time) but, a communication from clergy regarding the already-established practices of the faith doesn't really represent a direct intrusion into politics. The reason is the individual's personal domain must buffer what his church says and what he does as a public servant. The clergy are just doing one of the things clergy are supposed to do which is reinforce the party line as a matter of course.

caddis - appreciate what you're saying about the specific situation, thanks for the post btw, but it's hard to see how this one situation could be affected without causing harm to the rest of the system due to the precedent it would set, where's the line, who judges the judges, how, that sort of thing; the whole thing could get very recursive with people wanting to judge the judges of the judges, where does it stop and is it even possible to adequately define let alone eliminate bias anyway?

Re. roe v wade - my two bit analysis is the thing may eventually be overturned not on moral grounds anyway but based on something legalistic related to balancing the rights of other related / interested parties with those of the mother.
posted by scheptech at 4:02 PM on August 12, 2005

t's hard to see how this one situation could be affected without causing harm to the rest of the system

I think that is one of the big points. The controversy will arise. What will be the outcome and spill-over? It really could become a sort-of constitutional crisis, except that one branch, the Judiciary, will hold almost all the cards. Of course if the Pope says that what he said before does not apply to the Supremes on this, then it is over.

Roe has been a dead-man-walking for many years. The issues will be how, why and what is the spill-over.
posted by caddis at 4:56 PM on August 12, 2005

this example from the Alabama Supreme Court shows why recusals are needed: Three members of state’s Supreme Court base custody opinions on Bible
An 8-to-1 ruling in a child custody case July 29 by the Alabama Supreme Court illustrates the degree to which Christian fundamentalism influences some members of that court, a panel known to be particularly homophobic.

In a case that sparked separate opinions by six of the nine justices, at least three asserted that parental rights are “God-given,” with one of them, the lone dissenting judge going further and placing his view of a “Higher Authority” as the source of governmental legitimacy. ...
posted by amberglow at 5:47 PM on August 12, 2005

Roe has been a dead-man-walking for many years.

Roe and the rulings on the Interstate Commerce Clause are some of the most frustrating things in the world. Mostly good results, mostly bad judicial decisions.

I'm with the smallish group of progressives who thinks that Roe should be overturned so that we can pass better laws. Unfortunately, there's at least 9 states that would likely outlaw abortion. Is it worth the risk? Certainly not for anyone in those 9 states ...

However, I think that if states were forced to pass laws to protect abortion, most would do so. Perhaps I'm an optimist.
posted by mrgrimm at 6:07 PM on August 12, 2005

Bad metaphor. He could always just find another partner.

Maybe he loves his partner and doesn't want to have sex with anyone but him. Sounds like major potential influence to me. Or are we suggesting gay people are automatically promiscuous and only form relationships for sex.

Scheptech, as a gay man, no that's not what I'm suggesting at all.

For that matter, I could even suggest Kwantsar's metaphor is poor since he clearly knows little what the gay community thinks about gay marriage, which is not as simplistic as he thinks.

Some gay men could care less about the necessity of marriage, and in fact care more about equal protection under law, which is a more generalized issue that affects more than just gay men in this country.

This judge might want to stay with his partner, but having a partner doesn't imply support for gay marriage, and therefore having a partner doesn't imply a judge would necessarily be biased about gay marriage simply on that basis. Therefore there is no need to rescind a gay judge with a partner.

In contrast, however, either you're a Catholic or you're not. The Pope and his bishops seem happy enough to threaten excommunication for anyone who doesn't toe the line. Unfortunately for Kwantsar's position, we don't throw our fellow gay men and women outside the community simply because they don't toe an imaginary political agenda. Visit the Log Cabin booth at any pride parade if you want a real-life example.

Caddis' point is a genuinely good one. There is a tradition of separation of church and state embodied in the fundamental framework of this country, even if the ruling government doesn't always follow that guideline.

For a judge to make his or her rulings based on church doctrine is unacceptable, and any such judge should voluntarily recuse him or herself from relevant casework, or resign on personal principle, to uphold the law of the land.
posted by Rothko at 6:54 PM on August 12, 2005

That's a pretty outrageous case, Amberglow, but reading between the lines, it did reach the right result -- kid stayed with grandparents. And I'm still not convinced that there's any way an automatic recusal statute could avoid running into serious problems with the independence of the judiciary & freedom of religion.

Family law -- defined broadly as everything from abortion to gay marriage to child custody to Terry Schiavo -- is the one area of law most permeable to personal value judgements, including those based on religion. This is due in part to the nature of the issues, but also because the standards used are inevitably pretty subjective (e.g. "the best interests of the child.") So I think a better answer to the problem is getting laws passed that provide specific protection, rather than relying on the courts.
posted by footnote at 7:09 PM on August 12, 2005

well, isn't there an official oath of office of judge? doesn't it say that decisions have to be based on real things like existing laws and stuff? Isn't "the best interests of the child" based on something other than religious beliefs but realworld protection and care and support?
posted by amberglow at 7:36 PM on August 12, 2005

Perhaps homosexuals should be obliged to recuse themselves from cases involving pedophilia and STDs.
posted by paleocon at 8:03 PM on August 12, 2005

Perhaps homosexuals should be obliged to recuse themselves from cases involving pedophilia and STDs.

Don't feed the troll!
posted by Rothko at 8:45 PM on August 12, 2005

If the Catholic, or any other, church attempts to intimidate any member of any branch of government, they should have their tax exempt status revoked.
They may not back down because of political pressure, but paying their fair share of taxes would cripple them in the US. They will back down over that.
posted by bashos_frog at 9:07 PM on August 12, 2005

They may not back down because of political pressure, but paying their fair share of taxes would cripple them in the US. They will back down over that.

If only from all the real estate holdings they have in the US and around the world. The Archdiocese of Chicago alone owns nearly US$1 billion in land and properties.

Organized religion does seem more like a multinational corporation than anything else. The threat of taxation would definitely put a crimp in their political campaigning.
posted by Rothko at 9:17 PM on August 12, 2005

Perhaps homosexuals should be obliged to recuse themselves from cases involving pedophilia and STDs.

Why? There's no connection between homosexuality and pedophilia or between homosexuality and STDs in general.

There does, however, appear to be a connection between homosexuality and stupidity - the mere existence of homosexuality elicits stupid statements like the one you just made.

Organized religion does seem more like a multinational corporation than anything else. The threat of taxation would definitely put a crimp in their political campaigning.

Really? What do they sell, exactly? How many people do they employ? In what way are they anything like a multinational corporation?

As much as I disagree with the Catholic Church on most issues, I don't see how they're doing anything they shouldn't be allowed to do.
posted by me & my monkey at 10:38 AM on August 13, 2005