Maybe not the most helpful intervention into the Supreme Court fight.

First of all, does it make sense to hold out for “qualified jurists who, pre-eminently, support the protection of human life from conception to natural death, especially of those who are unborn, disabled, or terminally ill”? I’d be perfectly happy with justices who allowed legislatures to extend that protection. If the bishops want more, whatever else may be said about their wanting more, then they have no chance of prevailing.

Second, does it make sense to seek “jurists who . . . recognize the value of parental choice in education”? Again, how about just justices who are willing to allow legislatures to recognize that value?

Third, they want jurists who “favor restraining and ending the use of the death penalty.” I don’t especially care what view a judge takes about whether a state should impose the death penalty. If the bishops want someone who will override state legislatures’ choices in this matter, they’re wrong.

If this just reflects poor draftsmanship, then maybe the bishops should change their hiring practices.