Heres a snippet:
The traditional Catholic view—and Alito, Scalia, Roberts, and Thomas in various ways are pretty traditional or orthodox Catholics—is that a person’s political opinions are not governed by revelation as much as by natural law. Natural law is the truth about the rational and social nature of human beings that we can know without revelation’s help. Evangelicals tend to believe that if it were not for the absolute truth of Biblical revelation, something like the libertarian understanding of the absolutely autonomous individual (the being described by Barnett and by the Court in Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Lawrence v. Texas) would describe our lives. The Catholic view is that a consistent individualism is not an adequate account of who we are as natural beings, and so the limits to liberty understood as autonomy can be realized whether or not one believes in the Biblical God. We don’t need to be Christians—either Catholic or evangelical—to see that abortion is wrong.
Catholics are much better than evangelicals in connecting their faith-based perceptions to general-audience arguments on the purpose and limits of Constitutional law. That’s not to say that Catholic justices would use “natural law” to declare statutes and policies un-Constitutional without showing clearly how that law is actually embodied in the text of the Constitution itself. The point is more that those who see natural law as true are more likely to see efforts to understand the judicial power in a radically individualistic and activist way as at war with the way human beings really are.
I think hes right about "run-of-the-mill" evangelicalism, which is sort of happily voluntaristic, but not about its neo-Calvinist strain, which talks a lot about
"common grace." As with everything Peter writes, its pithy and illuminating.