More Murray: “One way senators could broach the issue would be through a section of the American Bar Association’s Model Code of Judicial Conduct that states judges should not preside over cases in which they have a financial ‘or other’ interest. Democrats are debating whether to ask Roberts to interpret the section in the context of a decision by some Catholic bishops last year to refuse Holy Communion to Catholic politicians who support abortion rights. If such a ban were extended to Supreme Court justices, would Roberts consider that a sufficient ‘other’ interest?”

Interesting. A belief is now an interest. Does the “interest” have to be perceived or real? In order to determine that there is a conflict of interest, does a senator have to make a judgment that voting for abortion actually would threaten a justice’s immoral soul? [UPDATE: That should be immortal soul, not immoral–depending on the justice.]

If Roberts were asked the question, I think he could reasonably answer: “That’s a highly hypothetical question. I am no canon lawyer, but as I understand it the Church judges lawmakers differently from those whose job it is to interpret the law. My job as a (chief) justice will be to try to figure out what the law says about difficult issues, not what my church might wish the law were. Next question?”