It should be interesting to see how they rule on the issue of abortion.
Those Romanists judges who would like to see abortion outlawed are stuck between a rock and a hard place.
While they no doubt believe abortion is wrong they are also strong believers in the theory of precedence and stare decisis. Think of it in terms of Roman Canon Law. Once a doctrine (law) is promulgated it can’t be overturned. The best they can do is nibble around the edges. The liberal activist judges are less constrained by precedence and are more likely to overturn law but of course they have no desire to overturn Roe v Wade.
Funny,... people identify with Roman Catholicism so easily, yet half of those I meet who claim at one time to be Roman Catholic, later profess either agnosticism, atheism, or appeal to New Age variation in doctrines and attribute it to Roman Catholicism.
For this reason alone, my skepticism of those who claim to be Catholic isn't as much an attack of Roman Catholicism, but rather a skepticism that most who appeal to RCC really don't either understand many Catholic doctrines or simply identify with the RCC in a worldly fashion as a religion associated with Christianity and seek to have worldly acceptance, possibly authority or religious morality over others.
Now, do I identify that behavior with the RCC? Not fully, as I suspect most who practice it really aren't RCC faithfully, but I have also met many who migrate towards the RCC and convolute with that mix of congregatinalists. Hard to tell.