Last week there was an initial report that Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts was asked what he would do if the law required a ruling that his church considers immoral. As the news was first reported Judge Roberts was said to have responded by saying that he would have to recuse himself from a case where a law required a ruling that his church considered immoral. Since that time the Democratic Senator’s office that reported this exchange has backed away from the initial report.

We learned later in a report from The New York Times that despite Senator Durbin’s initial account, that two officials who had been present at the confidential meeting with Judge Roberts — as well as Sen. John Cornyn, who had been briefed on the conversation shortly afterward — said that the judge “responded that his personal views would not color his judicial thinking … as he has testified in the past.”

Now, it seems that everybody is satisfied with this account of what really happened. Those supporters of Judge Roberts who were momentarily hyperventilating over the initial report are now soothed.

But should they be?

Why is it that the supporters of Mr. Roberts are soothed by the news that Mr. Roberts said, “that his personal views would not color his judicial thinking … as he has testified in the past,” as opposed to the initial report that alleged that Roberts had said he would recuse himself if the law required a ruling that his church considers immoral? I mean isn’t the former true quote almost as bad as the latter untrue quote?

Here is my question. If Mr. Robert’s personal views will not color his judicial thinking whose personal views will color his judicial thinking? Will Judge Souter’s personal views color Judge Roberts’ thinking? Will Judge Rhenquist’s personal views color Judge Roberts’ thinking? Will Judge Roberts do judicial thinking that is uncolored by anybody’s personal views? Are we supposed to believe that judicial thinking that leads to judicial decision making is colored by nobody’s personal views? If judicial thinking isn’t colored by anybody’s personal views then why do we have the law and laws that we have? Wouldn’t it be kind of silly to have laws that didn’t reflect the thinking of somebody’s personal views? Finally, isn’t it ok to have your personal views color your judicial thinking if your personal views are right?

Allow me to continue to pursue this for just a moment. Is Judge Roberts saying here that, if for example, it was his personal view that abortion was morally wrong he would not allow that to color his judicial thinking, or to the contrary, to posit the opposite hypothetical, would it be the case that if Judge Roberts’ personal view was that abortion was a moral good would he not allow that to color his judicial thinking? In either case what I want to know is …

Why shouldn’t a person’s views color every aspect of their thinking, and furthermore how can a person’s views not color their thinking — judicial or otherwise? How does one go about determining which personal views are acceptable in coloring the thinking on judicial matters and which are not? Furthermore, if one uses his personal views to determine which personal views are acceptable and which are not for judicial thinking doesn’t that kind of prejudice the results? But that would never do because that is what we are supposedly trying to avoid.

I presume that it is the personal view of Judge Roberts that what he thinks personally shouldn’t color his judicial thinking. How could it not be otherwise? But if it is his personal view that what are his personal views shouldn’t color his judicial thinking isn’t the personal view that his personal views shouldn’t color his judicial thinking a view that is itself colored by his having the personal view that his personal views shouldn’t color his judicial thinking? Is it really right or appropriate for Judge Roberts to be going around giving us his obviously colored personal views about his future uncolored personal views as they will relate to his judicial thinking since the colored personal views about his future uncolored personal views may color his future uncolored views?

If you haven’t already figured it out the point here is that it is literally impossible to not have ones personal views color all personal thinking — judicial or otherwise. How is it that public officials can keep blathering this kind of nonsense? And how is it that the American public keeps swallowing this bilge? How many times have we heard some politician, government schoolteacher or preacher say something similar? Can’t we just put an end to the pretense that our personal views are not supposed to affect our thinking?

But that is just my personal view and I admit that it is indeed a colored one that is affecting my thinking but just for the record you should be glad for that because my personal view with all the resplendent color that effects my thinking is the right one.