President Bush’s nomination of Judge John Roberts to the Supreme Court may be a blessing for moral conservatives in the long run, but right now it’s a source of anxiety.
On the one hand, if Roberts is opposed to Roe v. Wade, the court's 1973 decision legalizing abortion, he can't say so, since that would touch off a firestorm and jeopardize his chances of confirmation. On the other hand, if he isn't opposed, conservative Catholics and the Christian right will be deeply — and understandably — disappointed as well as alienated from the man who nominated him. Roberts presently has to stay mum. Moral conservatives can only keep their fingers crossed.
It seems unlikely that anything in Roberts's distinguished career as an appellate lawyer and a federal judge fully prepared him for the down-and-dirty reality of abortion politics as he is now experiencing it.
In particular, that includes the introduction of his Catholicism into the debate. The subject was raised by Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL), a pro-choice Catholic, who wanted to know how the nominee would handle a case involving something the Church considers a sin. The implication is that a Catholic public official can't be loyal to his faith and also loyal to his public duties.
This scraping of the bottom of the barrel is a throwback to the Al Smith campaign of 1928 and the John Kennedy campaign of 1960. It's bigotry pure and simple, whether it comes from the KKK or a Catholic politician.
It is not recorded that during the confirmation process anyone asked the Supreme Court's two Jewish members, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, how they would handle a case in which US interests clashed with the interests of Israel — and it would have been outrageous if the question had been raised.
In part, the fuss over Roberts and his views on abortion reflects the success of pro-choice advocacy groups and their allies in politics and the media in their efforts to foster the perception that the pro-life position on abortion is outside the mainstream. The spin is that to favor the legal dismemberment of tiny humans before birth is to be “moderate,” while to oppose it is to be “extreme.”
As a matter of social-science fact, however, that isn't true. For some years now, Karlyn Bowman of the American Enterprise Institute has been publishing occasional summaries of polling data on American public opinion concerning abortion. In the most recent of these, appearing two weeks ago, she pointed to the deep ambivalence that still exists among Americans. Substantial numbers consider abortion murder, but substantial numbers also say abortion is a personal choice. On the legal question Bowman gave this overview:
Most Americans do not want to repeal Roe v. Wade. At the same time, however, they are willing to put significant restrictions on abortion. Majorities of Americans favor notification of spouses, parental consent, 24-hour waiting periods. They support first-term abortions, but oppose second- and third-trimester ones.
While this is far less than pro-lifers want, it shows that opposition to legalized abortion as it presently exists is the true mainstream position.
Be that as it may, the political dynamics of the current moment require Judge Roberts to keep his views on abortion — and other social issues, too — largely to himself. Moral conservatives thus find themselves in the uneasy position of having to take it on the administration's word that he will be the kind of Supreme Court justice they want. And maybe he will. Unhappily, they were sold the same line about David Souter.
Russell Shaw is a freelance writer from Washington, D.C. You can email him at RShaw10290@aol.com.
To purchase Shaw's most popular books attractively priced in the Catholic Exchange store, click here.
