Where Left Is Right / The Old Site

On yesterday's "Meet the Press" (transcript), the guests during the first portion were Mario Cuomo and one Douglas Kmiec, "Prof. of Constitutional Law, Pepperdine University, former Dean, Catholic University School of Law." Russert's topic for the two was:

...the nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court. Are his religious beliefs an appropriate area of inquiry? The Vatican has criticized Catholic governors and legislators for supporting abortion rights. Should the same scrutiny apply to Catholic judges?

The conversation revolved especially around Clause 3 of Article VI of the US Constitution:

The Senators and Representatives..., and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Kmiec did a strange little thing with this, saying that the "no religious Test" phrase really applied to legislators -- lawmakers -- but not to judges. Cuomo disagreed, unsurprisingly. But he also turned the effect (not the intent) of the clause around. Because Article VI requires all officeholders to uphold the Constitution, Cuomo said, it's entirely reasonable to ask them not about their specific religious beliefs, but about how they would resolve conflicts between their religious beliefs in general and the Constitution and laws of the land:

Now, practically and trying to be constructive, the question ['Will you, Judge, apply a religious test to the Constitution?'] has to be answered. What you're really saying to the judge is, "Look, judge, just tell us whether there's anything about you, your religion or anything else, that will make you defy your oath to put the Constitution first." His answer is clear. He can only say one thing. "No. There is nothing." "Not even your religion?" "Not even my religion." OK. The reason they're trying to duck that issue is that then gets them into trouble with all those conservative Republicans, politicians and clerics who have attacked Democrats like Kennedy, like Ted Kennedy, like Gerry Ferraro, like John Kerry in the last campaign and said, "Oh, if you're religious," you know, "then you've got to do what the church says or you're a hypocrite." If Judge Roberts puts himself into that position, then the shoe is on the other foot politically.
[...]
Let Judge Roberts answer the question. Let him tell the truth. The professor says his position will be, "No, my religion will not influence me." Fine. That's clarified. Then you deal with those Republican conservatives who came after the Democrats when they come after you.

Ouch. I've always loved about Cuomo not just his justly celebrated eloquence, but his skill at clobbering right-wing hypocrisy.

At the conclusion of that portion of MTP, Cuomo said further (about the stem-cell debate -- emphasis mine):

The president says life begins at conception. Is that a scientific conclusion? No. His science adviser, John Marburger, says that's a sacred issue, not a scientific one. Let's make it a scientific question. Give it to a task force on life and law like the one we created in New York state, with doctors, with experts, with ethicists, to decide: What does human life mean? It means consciousness. When does that occur? When does viability occur? Roe against Wade says 24 weeks, but that's old, old medical evidence. 1973 is the decision; evidence was from 1950. Why don't you measure that again? If viability is now, let's say, 20 weeks instead of 24, that's a lot of abortions that will be stopped because, as we all know, once it's viable, then you can only have an abortion to save the life of the mother.

I'd love to hear from a task force like that, wouldn't you? Is one even possible?

In a way, it's astounding that these questions continue to come up, and up, and up... This isn't to deride anyone's inner beliefs or their outward conduct in response to their beliefs. It's just, like, How many times to we have to answer the same questions?