After years of predictable responses in presidential debates, we all know by now that “litmus tests” for judicial nominees are verboten. At the same time, we all know both parties look at several factors to gauge how a nominee would judge on hot issues.

But perhaps we didn’t know that such questioning amounts to “religious discrimination.” As Ray Flynn, former mayor of Boston and Clinton’s ambassador to the Vatican, now current spokesman for Schiavo group Catholics for the Common Good, warns:

It is time for Catholics to get ready to fight de facto religious discrimination during the upcoming Supreme Court confirmation proceedings. An abortion litmus test, called for by some Senate leaders and special interest groups, would leave faithful Catholics out. Catholics for the Common Good and I are launching a national campaign to educate Catholics and ask them to prepare to mobilize if religious discrimination rears its ugly head.

Of course, things rings a little hollow. As we wrote this week, the religious right has been preemptively piling on Alberto Gonzales — a loyal conservative apparatchik — for allegedly being soft on abortion, or rather not having already proven himself to be the kind of person who would vote down Roe.

As is always obvious when somebody decries “litmus tests,” he really does want a “litmus test,” as long as it fits his definition of “commitment to apply the Constitution as written.”

The press release continues:

“A number of faithful Catholics and other Christians already have been openly opposed in the confirmation process for their ‘deeply held religious beliefs’ including people like William Pryor, Leon Holmes, Carolyn Kuhl, and Henry Saad.” added CCG member and San Francisco attorney, Penny Preovolos. “Nominees should be considered on their qualifications and their commitment to apply the Constitution as written”
…
“Catholics for the Common Good is calling on Senators to respect the Constitution, which states, ‘no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States,’” said [CCG Chairman Bill] May. “Stop demanding an abortion litmus test on judicial nominees which is de facto religious discrimination and would exclude people faithful to the doctrine of their churches.”

That’s the rub, isn’t it — we all want to know how the nominee will “apply the Constitution as written.” Most Americans, for example, want to keep Roe, meaning they think applying “the Constitution as written” includes at least some personal autonomy for women. Whereas Ambassador Flynn would “apply” such rights away.

It’s certainly creative, though, to call this a “religious test” or “de facto religious discrimination.” That innovative argument-ender is the natural result of combining religion, politics, judicial philosophy, etc. into one — the Party of God is inarguable.