MICHEL MARTIN, HOST:
We wanted to dig deeper into the roots of the late Justice Scalia's views. He made no secret of the fact he was a man of deep faith, a devout Catholic, so we were curious about how his faith may have shaped his opinions on the court. NPR religion correspondent Tom Gjelten has been thinking about that, and he's with us now. Tom Gjelten, thanks for joining us.
TOM GJELTEN, BYLINE: Of course.
MARTIN: So did Antonin Scalia invoke his faith publicly? How did he talk about it?
GJELTEN: He talked often about his faith. But, you know, he said - he was very insistent on this - he said there's no such thing as a Catholic justice. He insisted that his legal reasoning was based on one thing, the Constitution. Now I think it's an understatement to say that he had the strength of his convictions. He was very opinionated, and those who worked closely with him or for him say that his faith probably contributed to the certainty of his convictions. You know, faith can do that to someone. So if he was doctrinaire, it wasn't necessarily a reflection of his Roman Catholic thinking. He had a very complex legal mind.
MARTIN: Well, let's give some examples. How about, say, an issue like abortion, which the Catholic Church vehemently opposes?
GJELTEN: Right. And he vehemently opposed it as a Catholic. And he said that the 1973 Supreme Court decision - famously Roe versus Wade, which legalized abortion across the country - was wrongly decided. But he didn't say that on moral or theological grounds. He said it on the basis of the Constitution. He said because abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution, the court has no business telling states they have to allow it. On the other hand, he said that also meant that the federal government could not tell states that they couldn't allow abortion. So he said it was a matter to be left up to the states.
MARTIN: So a more nuanced view than perhaps many people might realize that he had on it.
GJELTEN: Yes, right.
MARTIN: What about the issue of same-sex marriage? This an issue in which the Catholic Church has also been opposed. I mean, the recent pope, Pope Francis, has taken perhaps a more - many people might think a more nuanced view than previous people, but he also opposed it. Talk about that. Talk about his jurisprudence in this area.
GJELTEN: Here, he was much clearer in his opposition to same-sex marriage, and he went a little bit further in this regard. He basically said that people - there are valid religious grounds for opposing same-sex marriage and therefore, the government has to be very careful about overruling people's religious grounds. Now this actually bothered some people. In fact, Judge Richard Posner said that his views suggested that religious thinking could sort of overwhelm legislation and this could pave the way to a majoritarian theocracy, Judge Posner said. So in that regard, he was a little bit more extreme, but he still made a legal argument, not a theological argument.
MARTIN: I'd like to understand his views of religious freedom. Some recent Supreme Court decisions on the contraception mandate under the Affordable Care Act, on same-sex marriage have led some people to say that they believe that religious freedom is under threat in this country, and that has become an issue in the current presidential campaign. I'd like to understand his views of this because his opinions were those that aligned with a conservative view.
GJELTEN: They certainly were in the case of the contraceptive mandate under the Affordable Care Act, where he said that corporations had every reason not to through with that, not to comply with that. On the other hand, here again you have very nuanced views. If you go back to 1990, he wrote that the free exercise of religion did not necessarily mean people could use their religious freedom beliefs as a reason not to obey generally applicable laws. Writing for the court majority in this case, Scalia said to permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land and, in effect, permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Now, Michel, to his dying day, advocates of religious liberties said they disagreed with this thinking in that specific instance, so he was not necessarily predictable.
MARTIN: Can you just give us just a sense of what you think his legacy will be in this area?
GJELTEN: I think his legacy will be that you can separate arguments between theological and constitutional grounds and even as a Conservative, you can base those arguments on constitutional grounds.
MARTIN: That's NPR religion correspondent Tom Gjelten. Tom, thank you.
GJELTEN: You bet.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.