Christopher Hitchens is at it again. “A few weeks ago, I wrote about the man who is now our chief justice. I pointed to unrebutted evidence that, in answer to a direct question from a fellow Catholic (Sen. Richard J. Durbin, D-Ill.), Roberts had replied that in the case of a conflict between the law and the teaching of the Vatican, he would recuse himself.” That would be “unrebutted” except in the sense that both Durbin and Roberts (through the White House) have denied the account. “Since obviously it is impossible to nominate, let alone confirm, anyone who does not answer that the law and the Constitution should control in all cases, I proposed that Roberts ought to be asked the question again and in public. For this, I got exactly what I expected: allegations of anti-Catholic bigotry from the fideists at National Review. . .” Let’s take this one in parts. “For this”: Actually, I criticized Hitchens for the amateurishness of his op-ed. Check out my initial post in this matter, and you’ll see that my objection was hardly to the proposal that Roberts be asked this question. “Anti-Catholic bigotry”: I didn’t accuse him of it, but rather noted what his pre-emptive defense to the charge was. “Fideist”: That’s just a lazy slur. This is a sad performance. Slate can do better, even if Hitchens, on this subject, can’t.