The demand from the Democrats that Justice Amy Coney Barrett recuse herself from a gay rights case because of her Christianity invites an editorial on one of our favorite constitutional principles, the duty to sit. Before we get there, though, let us note that the demand that Justice Coney Barrett recuse herself because of her faith also violates the most emphatic clause of the entire Constitution — the prohibition on religious tests.

This celebrated prohibition is contained in the third paragraph of the Constitution’s article requiring legislators and all executive and judicial officers both of the United States and the several states to be bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution. And then the famous words: “But no religious test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any office or public Trust under the United States.”

We’ve added the bold-face type to mark the Founders’ emphaticness. “No . . . Ever . . . Any.” They just insisted that there be no religious test at any time — ever — for any office or public trust, not even for a Supreme Court justice on a gay rights case — none, ever, any. How much clearer could the Founders have been? God Himself couldn’t have made it any clearer even were He hurling lightning bolts or scattering plagues.

Then again, too, there is the duty to sit. This is a countervailing obligation to the duty to recuse. Neither are contained in the Constitution itself but both are widely recognized, some of it statute. We last wrote about this in an editorial called “Justice Thomas’ Duty.” The principle was articulated by Chief Justice Rehnquist in a case where he faced pressure to recuse himself because he’d testified before Congress on the matter at hand.

The Chief Justice declined, observing that federal judges have “a duty to sit where not disqualified which is equally as strong as the duty to not sit where disqualified.” That “equal duty,” he added, “is even stronger in the case of a Justice of the Supreme Court,” because there is no higher court to which an appeal can be made. Recusals, too, can cause an even split of the Nine — affirming a lower court ruling but leaving the legal principle “unsettled.”

The Nine’s own “Statement of Recusal Policy” reasons that “even one unnecessary recusal impairs the functioning of the Court.” While Chief Justice Rehnquist made clear that this concern would not justify a failure to recuse when a judge is “disqualified,” he did see it as ““a reason for not ‘bending over backwards’” to “deem one’s self disqualified.” Chief Justice Roberts underscored this point by noting the Constitution left recusal up to the justices.

So Justice Barrett has reason to disregard the calls from “former members” of a “secretive faith group, the People of Praise,” for her to recuse herself in an upcoming case on gay rights. The case involves a designer who refuses on religious grounds to create websites celebrating gay weddings. “I don’t believe that someone in her position, who is a member of this group, could put those biases aside,” an ex-member of People of Faith tells the Guardian. 

Putting aside the point that it’s not even clear if Justice Barrett is or ever was a member of this group, the calls for her recusal echo Senate Democrats’ insinuations during her confirmation hearings that her faith would impair her objectivity as a judge. “The dogma lives loudly within you,” Senator Feinstein said, in a remark that appalled even the most secular of the solons. Yet Justice Barrett made clear her faith does not influence her jurisprudence.

If Justice Barrett is weighing the calls for her recusal, she can follow Chief Justice Roberts’s advice to consult the 1924 Canons of Judicial Ethics. The canons urge judges to “not be swayed by partisan demands, public clamor or considerations of personal popularity or notoriety,” and advise ignoring “unjust criticism.” That advice is especially apt when the “criticism” amounts to a religious test over whether a judge can perform his or her job.