Mass recusals

OK, here’s a hypothetical: Let’s assume Sonia Sotomayor clears her confirmation hearings next month and is approved to serve on the Supreme Court. She’ll be the sixth Catholic justice (of nine total) on the high court. Let’s further assume that at some point in the next few years, Roe v. Wade comes up for another […]

OK, here’s a hypothetical: Let’s assume Sonia Sotomayor clears her confirmation hearings next month and is approved to serve on the Supreme Court. She’ll be the sixth Catholic justice (of nine total) on the high court. Let’s further assume that at some point in the next few years, Roe v. Wade comes up for another hearing, or the fight over gay marriage reaches the Supreme Court.

Should Sotomayor recuse herself? What about the other Catholic justices — Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia and Kennedy?

Joyce Appleby, a retired history professor at UCLA, thinks so. In fact, she thinks Catholic jurists should recuse themselves “when cases come before their court on which their church has taken positions binding on its communicants.”


It hasn’t happened yet, and likely never will, but it’s an interesting idea. More from Appleby:

Recusal sounds like a radical measure, but we require judges to withdraw from deliberations whenever a personal interest is involved. Surely ingrained convictions exert more power on judgment than mere financial gain. Many will counter that views on abortion, same-sex marriage, and the death penalty are profound moral commitments, not political opinions. Yet who will argue that religious beliefs and the authority of the Catholic Church will have no bearing on the justices when presented with cases touching these powerful concerns?

Donate to Support Independent Journalism!

Donate Now!