Faithful Recusal Update

Very curious.

First, today's piece by David Kirkpatrick discusses the comment Roberts supposedly made about recusal when meeting with Sen. Durbin the other day.

Now Turley is saying that Durbin himself was one of his sources. Now, a spokesperson in Durbin's office was paraphrased as saying yesterday that Turley's "column is wrong". Which is it? Durbin really needs to clear this up. Also in Kirkpatrick's article is a statement from Sen. Cornyn saying that he asked Roberts whether there was a conflict between his faith and his reading of the Constitution that would prevent his participation on the Court; Cornyn says Roberts said there wasn't.

Second, this whole flap has set off the predictable moaning from the religious right that Roberts's faith is being made an issue, and that Democrats are anti-people of faith, etc.

These accusations are repulsive lies.

To start with, the issue here isn't Roberts's faith. It's whether or not he's willing to follow his oath to uphold the Constitution. Period.

You might think that somehow there should be a presumption that Roberts is willing to do so. Actually, I think there should be. But presumptions don't require one to avoid seeking confirmatory information. In this light, Durbin's question was perfectly reasonable given that a number of conservative Catholics around the country have tried to deny communion to politicians who support a woman's right to choose (remember the 2004 election and John Kerry?). Surely whatever arguments these partisans made with respect to the President and members of Congress would apply with greater force to someone on the Court, who is likely to have a much greater ability to affect choice.

Lastly, the WH has made faith an issue in promoting Roberts to the religious right. And it's not exactly the case that groups like the FRC have avoided bringing religion into this debate.