There's a story in today's NYT that just boggles my mind.

Here's the lede:

Congressional Republicans warned Democrats on Monday not to make Judge John G. Roberts's Roman Catholic faith an issue in his confirmation hearings for a seat on the Supreme Court, reviving a politically potent theme from previous battles over judicial appointees.

The Republicans surely didn't wait very long to resorting to "faith baiting" (a cousin to the GOP's preferred term any time a Democrat mentions race in a political context) on this one did they?

According to the story, this issue arose based on a conversation between SCOTUS nominee John Roberts and Senator Dick Durbin, both Catholics.

The subject came up after reports about a meeting on Friday at which Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, is said to have asked Judge Roberts whether he had thought about potential conflicts between the imperatives of their shared Catholic faith and of the civil law.

And somehow that heads us in the direction of a conversation regarding attacking someone for their religion? Give me a break.

Let's just imagine for a moment that President John Kerry had just nominated  Susie Smith, a progressive Catholic to the Supreme Court.  And let's just imagine for  moment that said nominee had gone yesterday to meet with Senator Rick Santorum, also a Catholic.

If Senator Santorum had asked Susie:

Have you thought about potential conflicts between the imperatives of our shared Catholic faith and of the civil law, particularly as it relates to the church's teachings regarding the death penalty?

Do you suppose that the NYT would have written a story asking if Rick Santorum was bashing Susie based on her religion?  Somehow I doubt it. 

Except the reality is, he might very well have been.  Not because he is anti-Catholic, but because he would want to make sure any nominee wasn't the wrong kind of Catholic, or Jew, or Protestant, the dreaded progressive strain, before deciding how to cast his vote.