The Great Whitebread Hope
Cidu Bill on May 11th 2010
As soon as Supreme Court Justice Stevens announced his retirement and it became apparent that his likely replacements were all either Jewish or Catholic, Ann Coulter wrote an article sounding the alarm there would no longer be any Protestants on the Supreme Court. At the time, I thought this was an odd thing to even notice, and I figured it was just Ann Coulter being Ann Coulter. After all, she’s been having a tough time of it lately — suddenly ignored by the media in favor of Sarah Palin, who’s prettier and not half as intelligent — so she has to make increasingly outrageous comments in order to get any attention.
But now the dearth of SCOTUS Protestantism is being offered up as news by organizations such as the Associated Press, so I have to wonder: Is this something American Protestants are really upset about, or is this a media-manufactured issue like “the War on Christmas”?
Filed in Ann Coulter, Bill Bickel, Elena Kagan, John Paul Stevens, Sarah Palin, Supreme Court, religion | 46 responses so far
Elyrest May 11th 2010 at 04:20 pm 1
Not being a Protestant I can’t think/speak for them, but it is interesting that there will be none on the SCOTUS. I actually couldn’t believe that could possibly be true so I had to look it up and 92 of the 112 Supreme Court justices in history have been Protestant, but there won’t be any now. There have only been 12 Catholics on the court and half of them are currently serving on it. I can’t feel sorry for the Protestants, but I don’t think Catholics should be so highly represented. I say this as someone who was raised Catholic in an area that was still prejudiced against Catholics. Religion shouldn’t matter, but it does.
Blinky The Wonder Wombat May 11th 2010 at 04:31 pm 2
Despite all the hand wringing, I don’t thing the religious background of the SCOTUS justices has much bearing on their decisions as much as it is an insight into how they came to their world views.
I find it interesting that all three Jewish members (Kagan, Ginsburg, and Breyer) along with Sotomajor are seen as liberals while four of the Catholic members (Robers, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito) are seen as conservatives. This lines up with the general perception of Jewish Liberalism and Catholic conservatism.
[jec] May 11th 2010 at 05:24 pm 3
Religious Representation (in population order), where 100% means Population % = In-Power %.
- SCOTUS (current)
Christian: 90%
Protestant: 18.5%
Catholic: 274%
Other: 0%
Jewish: 1,235%
- SCOTUS (possible future)
Christian: 90%
Protestant: 0%
Catholic: 320%
Other: 0%
Jewish: 1,235%
- Presidents and/or Vice Presidents (total, but using current percentages)
Christian: 116%
Protestant: 161%
Catholic: 9%
Other: 0%
Jewish: 0%
dnh May 11th 2010 at 05:25 pm 4
Protestant? How about a nonreligious Supreme Court? We do have a secular government, not a theocracy. Being an atheist independent from any nutty religious influences should really be a requirement to serve on the court.
Mary in Ohio May 11th 2010 at 05:37 pm 5
Wait a minute - since when are Catholics not Christians? (And no, I am a Protestant - and not a very fervent one!)
yellojkt May 11th 2010 at 05:45 pm 6
Republican presidents have been nominating Catholic justices because they are perceived and being adamantly anti-abortion. So if Coulter has a beef about their being no Protestant justices, she has her own party to blame.
Elyrest May 11th 2010 at 05:53 pm 7
Mary in Ohio (5) Catholics are Christians, but they are papists to many mainstream (and not so mainstream) Protestants. Although to the non-religious it might not make a difference to many people it does. I remember the brouhaha when Kennedy was running for office about the Pope being in charge. I think that Catholicism is closer to many branches of Protestantism than they are to each other.
Requiring people to be atheists dnh (4) is no different than requiring them to be religious. It’s still caught up in religion.
paperboy May 11th 2010 at 05:55 pm 8
The Supreme Court should represent America, right? So, if there’s no Protestants, there’s a serious lack of representation.
mitch4 May 11th 2010 at 06:18 pm 9
“John Paul Stevens”? Wasn’t he that Navy guy who went on to be star drummer with a sixties band?
Okay, just kidding. In fact the Chicago media made a big deal about his history around here. They even gave the location of a childhood home of his, less than a mile from where I am.
This business about no protestants among the Supremes came on the radio and I asked my work-friend “Does that mean Clarence Thomas is a Catholic??”. I don’t know why I pinpointed him, though I suppose the stereotypes about the African American churches were in play there — and it’s not surprising that the Italians would be Catholic.
Statistics like those given by [jec]#3 but in overwhelming detail can be found at http://www.adherents.com/ , notable also for their major work of classification and subclassification and the attempt to provide reasoned justifications for all of it.
Charlene May 11th 2010 at 06:18 pm 10
15% of Americans are high school dropouts and 35% only have a high school diploma. Why are all the judges university graduates?
David N May 11th 2010 at 06:26 pm 11
I see that “Other” is horribly underrepresented. I am quite disturbed that nobody else is disturbed by this.
Actually paperboy, there is no “balance” requirement and it would be illegal if there were. It really depends on who is going to law schools, who is where at the right place, who is in office, and other factors like age. There are no Asians or Native Americans for instance, and the first Hispanic made it last year. And let’s face it, not even anyone my age is “allowed” and I’m halfway ’round the track.
And if we give Stephen Breyer the benefit of the doubt, there are no bald men either. C’mon!
mitch4 May 11th 2010 at 06:34 pm 12
The specific Supreme Court stats page at Adherents is http://www.adherents.com/adh_sc.html A bit out of date, since they list Souter and not Sotomayor, let alone showing Stevens retired.
mitch4 May 11th 2010 at 06:43 pm 13
Sorry, one more afterthought from Adherents: They do list one Justice as “Not a member of any church”. That was one David Davis, appointed from Ill., served 1862-1877 (14 yrs), born Md. in 1815 d. 1886.
Marauder May 11th 2010 at 09:10 pm 14
Eh, I’m a post-evangelical Protestant, and this doesn’t bother me in the least. It’s an interesting demographic shift in the composition of the court, but it’s of no significance to me. I wouldn’t even have known if it hadn’t been pointed out to me. Give me justices with integrity, and I’ll be satisfied. That’s more important even than whether they are liberal or conservative.
Morris Keesan May 11th 2010 at 09:43 pm 15
paperboy (#8): No, the Supreme Court should not “represent America”. That’s what the Congress is for. The Supreme Court should consist of legal experts capable of judging fairly and wisely on complex matters of law. The “representation” argument was soundly mocked when Harrold Carswell was nominated for the Court, criticized for being a mediocre judge, and Senator Roman Hruska (R-Neb.) said that “mediocre judges and people and lawyers” were “entitled to a little representation”.
See also Article Six of the Constitution, which says, “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
Regardless of what one thinks of her personal views on any issues, or the widely-spread rumors about her sexuality, Kagan has a startlingly impressive set of qualifications for the job.
—————————-
And Mary in Ohio (#5), I assume your comment is referring to [jec]’s statistics, which I don’t believe are intended to consist of mutually-exclusive categories, otherwise “Christian”, “Protestant”, and “Catholic” would not all be listed. Other similar listings I’ve seen (such as the periodic listing of the religious makeup of the U.S. Congress, published by Americans for Religious Liberty) clarify this by using the category “All Christians” in addition to separate categories for different sects.
zbicyclist May 11th 2010 at 10:27 pm 16
This reminds me of one of my favorite quotes:
Former Senator Roman “Hruska is best remembered in American political history for a 1970 speech he made to the Senate urging them to confirm the nomination of G. Harrold Carswell to the Supreme Court. Responding to criticism that Carswell had been a mediocre judge, Hruska claimed that:
“Even if he were mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren’t they, and a little chance? We can’t have all Brandeises, Frankfurters and Cardozos.” ”
(from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Hruska )
Nicole May 11th 2010 at 10:45 pm 17
I don’t know about the protestants, but the word in the atheist blogosphere is that it is time for an atheist on the court … of course no one expect THAT to happen.
Winter Wallaby May 11th 2010 at 10:57 pm 18
I’m not a Protestant, but I can see being why a Protestant would be unhappy about this. Underrepresentation is a legitimate concern. If you think that being a Supreme Court justics consists of mechanical, logical exercises, like solving calculus problems, then yeah, there’s no reason to think about such things. But in reality, there are lots of legal questions that well-qualified, intelligent, legal minds can differ on, and those differences can turn on their background and experiences. A lot of legal questions turn on things like “what would a reasonable person do here,” or “how would a reasonable person view this government action,” and what’s reasonable depends on what you’ve experienced. Yeah, Hruska was a moron, but its perfectly legitimate to think about representation when choosing among the pool of well-qualified “legal experts capable of judging fairly and wisely on complex matters of law.” It’s not like there’s only one person in that pool.
That said, I can’t really feel like this is that terrible, given that Protestants have pretty overwhelming control of most other branches of federal and state governments.
David May 11th 2010 at 11:13 pm 19
Protestants may have the majority in most areas of government, but protestanism (is this a word?) is not a religion, it’s more or less a label for non-Catholic Christians. Many protestant religions disagree with other protestant religions at least as much as they disagree with Catholicism. Shoot, I’m a Lutheran, and there are Lutheran sub-denominations than make the majority denominations cringe and claim there’s no connection.
A government dominated by Southern Baptists and Pentecostals would be as upsetting to some as Lutherans and Episcopalians would be to others.
It reminds me of the original Illuminati card game, in which the enemy of a fanatical group is any other fanatical group. The opposite of a protestant is probably another protestant. It’s also kind of like the JPF and the PFJ.
So, in conclusion, I want Protestants on the Supreme Court, as long as they’re my kind of Protestant.
Lola May 11th 2010 at 11:28 pm 20
I’m with you Nicole. It’s time. At the inauguration, after I got over the hat, I was truly excited to hear the shout out to non-believers. Surely a first, but, truthfully, if Obama had made a speech specifically including us before the election (if he did, I never heard it), I’m guessing he’d never have been elected. In today’s political climate, I don’t think an atheist could get past the advise and consent process even if it were Jesus himself. Now THAT would be an interesting scenario. So, how long? Not long … I can only hope.
Elyrest May 11th 2010 at 11:43 pm 21
I have no doubt that there have been atheists on the court. Avowed atheists - no, but it wouldn’t surprise me. We have most likely had a gay president even though the word was never used at the time. There is much speculation that James Buchanan was probably gay. Whether he was or not didn’t hurt his presidency although he isn’t considered to have been a good president.
mkilby May 12th 2010 at 02:42 am 22
This may be the de jure standard, but the current de facto condition is that it is impossible to elect a President who does not belong to a mainstream Christian denomination. And even though there once were a few bachelor Presidents, it has been unthinkable (for decades) to elect a President who is not happily married, preferably with photogenic children. Sure, it was a major step forward to elect a black President, but I will cheer louder when (or rather, if) America finally elects an unmarried agnostic (of either gender).
Sili May 12th 2010 at 03:21 am 23
One’d think the religious right would salivate at having Catholics on the bench if they want Roe v. Wade overturned.
spiritcatcher May 12th 2010 at 03:46 am 24
since there were already protestants on the court in the past, there should be a muslim or buddhist first. or at least a satanist. i mean, those are christians, too, right ?
Ooten Aboot May 12th 2010 at 06:36 am 25
Religious people sometimes seem to be more concerned with the religion of judges than with their competence. Come to think of it, judges have a lot in common with clergy: mostly old (especially at the top ranks) mostly male, usually seen wearing robes (robe being from the French for what in plain English is called a dress) and purporting to impart judgments that mysteriously come from a higher power variously known as Justice, God, Allah and many other names. In Christianity, the end of the human race on earth involves the ultimate (literally) courtroom scene.
Blinky the Wonder Wombat May 12th 2010 at 06:42 am 26
sili-
In the political world, Catholic =/ pro-life. Examples include Joe Biden, John Kerry, and Ted Kennedy.
Karen May 12th 2010 at 07:01 am 27
Blinky: Kennedy, Kerry and Biden are not pro-life. They are as far from pro-life as you can get. They may call themselves Catholic, they may attend church, but bishops have stated that they should be/have been barred from receiving communion because of their stance on abortion. Add to that the divorces on Kerry and Kennedy’s part–they give Catholics a bad name and most devout Catholics, like myself, wish they would drop the charade.
EngleRP May 12th 2010 at 07:18 am 28
Karen, i’m pretty sure that’s what he wanted to say. (At least, i think that with ‘=/’ he meant the ‘!=’-Operator (Or ‘/=’ in Fortran) which is defined as ‘not equal to’).
Blinky The Wonder Wombat May 12th 2010 at 08:19 am 29
EngleRP-
Thanks, that is what I tried to say. I never had much experience with programming languages!
Morris Keesan May 12th 2010 at 08:52 am 30
What Blinky wanted was the ‘≠’ character (Unicode 2260: “Not Equal To”; I copied and pasted this from the Windows “Character Map” application), which can also be represented with the HTML entity spelled ≠ and then looks like this: ≠ , probably rendered identically by most browsers that can handle
both of them.
[For those getting followup comments via email, what this will look like depends on how your email client renders HTML. When I get CIDU comments in email, I see the raw HTML source, because Wordpress’s software sends out those messages as Content-type: text/plain]
Hunt May 12th 2010 at 09:04 am 31
I am a Protestant, and the absence of Protestants doesn’t bother me, as long as Justices are not being chosen because of their religious beliefs. I don’t think Elena Kagan was nominated because of her Jewish beliefs (if she really has any, which I don’t know). I do think some of the Catholics nominated by Republicans were chosen in the hopes that their religious beliefs would color their decisions on abortion–which I think is uncomfortably close to a religious test.
farmer May 12th 2010 at 09:30 am 32
I think the larger problem is a question of under-diversity and under-representation on the court, which does not at all reflect American society. All but one are from east of the Mississippi. Four are from NY. Most have gone through the same narrow trajectory of select elite colleges and spent most of their lives fairly insulated from the rest of America. Kagan strikes me as an almost exact copy of Sotomayor; inidividually both are qualified and acceptable, but together they are little different.
This is not to say we should just throw random people on the Court. Obviously there are only certain paths and experiences that lead one to be qualified for the Court, and this of course narrows the field. But really, there were no judges or legal minds outside the DC-Boston cultural corridor?
The Protestant question is just a surface reflection of a larger discussion over the nature of the Court; I don’t think it’s really about the specific religious question, per se.
Mark May 12th 2010 at 10:19 am 33
As an Episcopalian, I really couldn’t care less, and further would think it tacky to complain.
Jeff S. May 12th 2010 at 10:38 am 34
I’m a member of the Jedi order. Where’s my representative on the court?
Tim O'Shenko May 12th 2010 at 10:43 am 35
As a Protestant, all I have to say is, who cares? It is to the benefit of both religion and politics if they remain separate.
It’s the duty of the Justices to understand and interpret the laws of the U.S. as impartially as they can. Personal religious beliefs shouldn’t really enter the equation.
Keera May 12th 2010 at 11:51 am 36
You know, up until this announcement, I hadn’t given the religions (if any) of the members of the SC any thought - and, honestly, I don’t think anybody else had, either. I think the Teabaggers are reaching.
Igelino May 12th 2010 at 01:55 pm 37
Ok, religion and politics. What a mix.
It’s kind of ironic hearing that the USA should separate religion from politics. The word “God” is on the money, and the people who started up the country were convinced that they were mandated by God to sort out the new world.
In addition, as far as I’ve seen around the world, religion is a inseparable part of humanity. I mean, sure there are atheists, but they are very much the minority.
Since politics are created by humans, and humans are pretty much inseparable from religion, I would think it is impossible to separate religion from politics.
It seems to me we can only try to manage the relationship between religion and politics.
I think misleading people into thinking that the two can be separated is counterproductive. Politics has to acknowledge religion as a part of humanity (as recognize that some people deny it), as well as recognize its real influence on politics. If we separate the two, we are saying that a politician can separate himself/herself from some of his or her deepest beliefs during the time he or she works on political stuff. I don’t believe he or she can. Or IF he/she can, then they are selling out on their beliefs.
Howabominable (aka Lindsey ^_^) May 12th 2010 at 02:26 pm 38
I’m a protestant, and I don’t care. As long as the justices interpret the law fairly and to their best ability, I am happy. You can be any religion and be more than qualified to interpret the law in the highest court. I do think it’s odd that all of the justices that are Christian are Catholic, and I wonder why, but I don’t really care or see it as a bad thing.
And I don’t think anyone else who isn’t Ann Coulter cares either, honestly.
Blinky The Wonder Wombat May 12th 2010 at 03:00 pm 39
Igelino-
Amen. (No irony intended.) One’s religious beliefs are part of what define that person and it foolish to ignore that. Knowing one’s religious background gives insight into that person’s thought processes and values, just like knowledge about one’s education, socio-economic background, and even their recreational interests give a similar insight. By no means do these facts tell definitively about this person, but certain assumptions can be made for starting an evaluation.
That being said, the most important quality for a justice of the SCOTUS is not their background but their commitment to fair, unbiased, and courageous defense of the Constitution.
zbicyclist May 12th 2010 at 10:09 pm 40
http://www.hlrecord.org/news/supreme-court-pick-fever-for-harvard-law-deans-1.1347136
All 8 current justices went to Harvard or Yale for law school. Kagan was dean of Harvard Law. These are fine law schools, but if we are talking diversity the ivy-ness of it all is concerning.
Slager May 12th 2010 at 10:56 pm 41
I’m a liberal Catholic, which made for some awkward times in my Confirmation classes; that’s all I gotta say about that. Anyway, Ann Coulter is an odd duck, that much is true. Either that, or she is the GREATEST parodist the world has EVER known, which part of me hopes is actually the case.
Shah May 13th 2010 at 11:04 am 42
Let me just chip in to say that, as a protestant, I had no idea what the religious views of the court justices were. I don’t care what they are as long as their decisions are based on law.
Detcord May 13th 2010 at 12:18 pm 43
Ingelino (37)
The separation of Church and State was a fundamental objective of the Founders of the Constitution. Whether they have achieved that goal may be open to question, but that was the intent. For the Supreme Court, I would prefer a strict constructionist (i.e. one who interprets the Constitution literally), regardless of a nominee’s race, gender, or religion (including athiest).
I am concerned about the nomination of Elena Kagan because I have read she has no experience on the bench. Without a track record, I have no idea how competent she will be in making judgements in accordance with the law - and more importantly - the Constitution.
Ann Coulter’s call for a Protestant nominee surprises me as I thought she knew better (yes, really).
As I am on holiday (in the US of all places) I won’t be able to respond often (Sorry about that. It figures a good one would come up now)
Nicole May 13th 2010 at 01:36 pm 44
Detcord @ 43
SCOTUS justices without prior bench experiece is far from unheard of. There were 40 in all … appointed by presidents in both parties. Most recent was William Rehnquist appointed by Richard Nixon.
http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/justices/nopriorexp.html
Here is Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, talking in 2005 about Bush Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers and whether it had become impossible for non-judges to reach the Supreme Court.
Well, I certainly hope that’s not the case, and it shouldn’t be the case.
“I mean, one reason I felt so strongly about Harriet Miers’s qualifications is I thought she would fill some very important gaps in the Supreme Court. Because right now you have people who’ve been federal judges, circuit judges most of their lives, or academicians. And what you see is a lack of grounding in reality and common sense that I think would be very beneficial. ”
Yesterday Cornyn attacked Elena Kagan — because, according to Cornyn, she lacks judicial experience. Really, he said that.
“Ms. Kagan is likewise a surprising choice because she lacks judicial experience. Most Americans believe that prior judicial experience is a necessary credential for a Supreme Court Justice. ”
One final note, Elena Kagan was nominate to the court of appeals by Bill Clinton, but the Republicans blocked her and many other Clinton judicial nominations. Had that not happened she would have the bench experience that she lacks.
All that being said — your concern is not unfounded. Of course anyone would want to know as much about a SCOTUS nominee as possible.
John in Tronna May 15th 2010 at 02:00 pm 45
I disagree with SCOTUS judges.
I’d prefer if they were all Thomists.
John in Tronna May 15th 2010 at 04:35 pm 46
I’m not American, so I don’t have a dog in this fight, but:
I see no problem with Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Zoroastrians, Atheists, or what have you serving either on the Supreme Court or in the House or wherever. Religious affiliation — and how tightly one is attached to it — is just one factor among many in sussing out a candidate. There’s also their cultural background, economic upbringing, etc. As well, not all adherents of a particular church/religion are of a piece: Nancy Pelosi, Wm F Buckley, Pat Buchanan, Arnold Schwartzeneggar, and Ted Kennedy all were/are Catholic, for example. Even as a conservative Catholic myself, I am sure that there are reasonable, fair-minded atheists out there whom I would rather see on the Supreme Court than, say, Mel Gibson.
You can take religion into account insofar as it affects a candidate’s voting — but their voting/ruling history is a better indicator than whatever God they do or do not pay lip service to.