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.

I’d prefer if they were all Thomists.

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.

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)

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.

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.

And I don’t think anyone else who isn’t Ann Coulter cares either, honestly.

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.