Regarding the Turley Column: What with all the talk about whether an attorney-client privilege compels the non-production of John Roberts' papers from his time with the Solicitor General in the early-90's, I'm surprised that the revelation that he would recuse himself if his legal judgment were to contradict his religious conscience hasn't gotten more play. Until this gets cleared up, I can't see how any self-respecting Democrat can allow the Roberts nomination to go forward to a Senate vote. This isn't a matter of extremism; if Roberts would allow his religious views to trump any contrary interpretation he might have to make concerning the Constitution, he simply can't be a judge. If Antonin Scalia, by all accounts a devout Roman Catholic, is able to rule in favor of the state on death penalty cases, in clear defiance of the stated views of his church, then Roberts has to be able to assure the public that he can do the same, on that and other issues. No one should be allowed to sit on the highest court of the land who cannot give our laws and precedents his absolute loyalty as a judge.