No Religious Test

From the Ethics and Public Policy Center:

No Religious Test
Anti-Catholic bigotry is unconstitutional and wrong – even when it comes from Catholics

By Colleen Carroll Campbell
Monday, August 8, 2005

Writing in the online version of The American Prospect, Adele Stan accused President Bush of “playing the Catholic card” by nominating John Roberts. “Bush is betting he’s bought himself some insulation,” Stan wrote, “any opposition to Roberts, particularly because of his anti-abortion record, will likely be countered with accusations of anti-Catholicism.” Stan suggested that Democrats dodge those accusations by enlisting pro-abortion Catholic Senators Dick Durbin, Ted Kennedy, Patrick Leahy, and Joseph Biden to lead the charge against Roberts.

[More]

My Comments:
As disgusting as the Schumer Doctrine* is, I'm not sure whether it's quite what the Founders had in mind when they drafted the Constitution's Article Six prohibition against religious tests for public office. I suppose that a United States Senator can vote for or against a judicial nominee for any reason he or she sees fit - including that the nominee is a devout Roman Catholic.

In her piece for EPPC, Colleen Carroll Campbell gets it half right: it definitely would be wrong to base one's vote on the religious beliefs of the nominee, but probably not unconstitutional. At least not in any sense that creates a justiciable issue in a court of law.

*A topic I've written about numerous times on this blog, the Schumer Doctrine is the insidious invention of New York Senator Charles Schumer, and posits that those with "deeply held religious beliefs" are deemed unsuitable for public office.