Justices give glimpses of personal opinions

WASHINGTON -- Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's unusual public declaration of independence from his Roman Catholic church on the death penalty reflects the vexing conflicts that justices confront as they wrestle with the law and their personal beliefs.

Justices in the past have hinted at internal conflicts mainly in written court opinions. Some have spoken more candidly about their families, religion, and legal conflicts -- with mixed reactions.

"Every time we open our mouths, we come close to compromising what we do," Justice Clarence Thomas told Virginia attorneys in 2000, after announcing he was limiting his speaking engagements.

Scalia talked extensively during public appearances this week in Washington and last month in Chicago about his disagreement with his church's statements against the death penalty.

He said judges who follow the philosophy that capital punishment is morally wrong should resign.

Other justices have also talked openly on that subject and others.

"I have to acknowledge that serious questions are being raised about whether the death penalty is being fairly administered in this country," Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said in Minnesota last summer.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg brought up similar concerns in a speech last April. "I have yet to see a death case among the dozens coming to the Supreme Court on eve-of-execution applications in which the defendant was well represented at trial."

Justice David H. Souter told Congress in 1996 that "the day you see a camera come into our courtroom, it's going to roll over my dead body."

Scalia told a group in Mississippi in 1996 that Christians should assert their faith even if intellectuals dismiss them as simpleminded.

Abe Bonowitz, director of the Florida-based Citizens United for Alternatives to the Death Penalty, said "it's smarter for them to keep quiet, then people are kept wondering. People on both sides of the issue can have some hope."

At the same time, groups like his anxiously seek out tidbits on justices' personal views to help their cause.

"They normally keep their mouths shut because there's no real percentage in it for them," said Douglas McFarland, a professor at Hamline University School of Law. "They don't want to do anything that will detract from the mystique" of the court.