There was some controversy when Justice Breyer,* as was the case in the past for judges who support abortion rights, received the "Fordham-Stein Ethics Prize," apparently given the Catholic tradition of that university. There is strong debate among Catholics over the proper path in this area as shown by the split among the Catholics on the Supreme Court as well as those supporting Obama or McCain.
This debate also was expressed on the pages of Newsweek, providing a useful and fascinating expression of the various sides. Respecting individual moral choice as well as pragmatic concerns as to who would benefit the cause best in the end, suggests a pro-life Catholic very well can conscientiously vote for the pro-choice candidate. Such as Obama/Biden.
Another religious controversy that is less hotly contested these days involved what to do with the children of many families in a controversial Texan religious sect. The case, after the appellate court held the state overstepped their bonds, is an important one. Local officials will from time to time, for good or ill, feel compelled to interfere with the parenting decisions of dissident sorts. The people in this case to some seem dangerous and unpleasant to boot, but familial privacy includes parental decisions you might find unpleasant. Likewise, some decisions you might support will be found as unpleasant to others. All the same, there was some reason for concern:
Jeffs, the sect's prophet, was convicted in Utah last year as an accomplice to rape for arranging the marriage of an underage girl to her older cousin. He faces trial on similar charges in Arizona before Texas prosecutors can pursue their case against him. [See also here, with the proviso the author is at times a bit over the top on such issues.]
This does not mean the officials took the due care required in this case, especially given the breadth of their actions. The 1980s day care scares underlines that the well being of children cannot lead us to support reckless action; it very well can be quite counterproductive as shown in the Waco fiasco. I will leave it at that, not knowing the exact details of the individual cases at hand ... all the same, a general lesson can still be expressed, caution in making a too sweeping conclusion probably a wise decision in cases of this nature (surely at this distance) overall.
This is also one of those flash in the pan controversies that merit occasional updates, but are generally seen and understood by most by often incomplete and/or misleading snapshots.
---
* I am about finished reading Charles L. Zelden's account of Bush v. Gore, an overall evenly keeled account of the events. He leaves a few things out, including the family members of Scalia/Thomas who worked on the Bush campaign, and bent over backwards (too much) to provide a fully credible reason for the ruling. I share its sentiment that it is more than the act of partisan hacks, but um, if "ego" factored in, why did the libs want to step aside? Also, emphasis should be added on such things as the fact certain counties (Republican rhetoric aside) never recounted the votes even once, leading to many votes not being counted.
Anyway, including its discussion of remaining problems in the electoral system, the book is overall a good read. A glaring problem: it ignores that Justice Breyer concurred (in full) with Stevens dissent, even going as far as saying that Breyer stuck with his equal protection concerns (of the "7") after the majority rejected his choice of remedy. Breyer addressed the issue, sure, but specifically chose not to decide on the matter. In fact, one should note that even Souter did not say he dissented "in part." So, how exactly did "7" justices decide on ANYTHING?
I'd toss one more thing. Many, including many members of Congress of both parties themselves, wanted no part of deciding this election. As with slavery in the territories, a fact often ignored by critics, many wanted the courts to decide. The book notes that if it went to Congress, there could have been a lot of bad blood. Still is, just among people who apparently do not matter too much, and in the process the Congress started on the road of punting on its responsibilities to the benefit W.