President Trump is expected to announce his eagerly awaited nomination for the Supreme Court at 9:00 ET / 6:00 PT tonight. He was widely reported to have shortened his short list to four. This morning Peter Nicholas and Louise Radnofsky report for the WSJ, "President
Donald Trump's
search for a Supreme Court nominee was narrowing in the hours
before the announcement, with Judge Amy Coney Barrett's prospects
fading, people close to the search said."
Mr. Trump's advisers said she might have more difficulty than her rivals
in winning confirmation because of her outspoken conservative views. In
academic articles, she has expressed unease with Roe v. Wade--the 1973
Supreme Court ruling that recognized abortion as a woman's
constitutional right. She also has supported the idea of high court
justices overturning past precedent when they fundamentally disagree
with it.
CJLF takes no position on Roe. We are more concerned with her 1998 law review article, which says:
To anticipate our conclusions just briefly, we believe that Catholic judges (if they are faithful to the teaching of their church) are morally precluded from enforcing the death penalty. This means that they can neither themselves sentence criminals to death nor enforce jury recommendations of death. Whether they may affirm lower court orders of either kind is a question we have the most difficulty in resolving. There are parts of capital cases in which we think orthodox Catholic judges may participate - these include trial on the issue of guilt and collateral review of capital convictions. The moral impossibility of enforcing capital punishment in the first two or three cases (sentencing, enforcing jury recommendations, affirming) is a sufficient reason for recusal under federal law. But mere identification of a judge as Catholic is not a sufficient reason. Indeed, it is constitutionally insufficient.
Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito didn't/don't seem to have a problem "enforc[ing] jury recommendations of death," but if Judge Barrett does and would feel compelled to recuse herself from a large and important chunk of the high court's workload, that would be a huge problem. When a federal court of appeals judge recuses, the court simply names another judge to the panel. But when a Supreme Court justice recuses, that leaves an 8-member court with the possibility of deadlock, not resolving the question and failing in the Court's mission to resolve questions on which lower courts are divided.
Concerning and confusing because nothing in Catholic teaching would preclude her from deciding in favor of capital punishment. Catholics are not bound to oppose it in all cases.