That a sixth Catholic is likely to sit on the Supreme Court may lead to a discussion of the relationship between a judges personal religious convictions and his/her judgements and decisions from the bench. Here is an article by historian Patrick Carey which explores Catholic reactions to the Dred Scott decision written by Chief Justice Roger Taney, a Catholic. Carey writes that Orestes Brownson "regretted that Taney did not act according to a Catholic conscience," as is illustrated by this paragraph from Brownsons essay:

We regret that in giving the opinion of the court the learned judge did not recollect what he is taught by his religion, namely, the unity of the race, that all men by the natural law are equal, and that Negroes are men, and therefore as to their rights must be regarded as standing on the same footing with white men, where there is no positive or municipal law that degrades them. Here is what we dare maintain is the error of the courtThe opinion of the court belongs to an epoch prior to the introduction of Christianity, and is more in accordance with the teaching of Aristotle than with that of the Gospel The court should lean to the side of the weak, and set its face against oppression. The Negro race is, no doubt, inferior to the white race, but is that a reason why they should be enslaved, or why the court should join the stronger against the weaker?

Any relevance today?