Skip to comments.Too many Catholics on the Supreme Court ?
Posted on 07/03/2014 7:14:48 AM PDT by A'elian' nation
RedState.com quotes a Huffington Post article wondering whether there are too many Catholics on the Supreme Court? At present there are no Protestants on the Supreme Court.
3 are Jewish ( Kagan, Breyer, and Bader ) and the remaining 6 are Catholic. It's been noted that the Supreme Court has never reflected the demographics of the country. The Court was all white until 1967 with the appointment of Thurgood Marshall, and Sandra Day O'Conner became the first female SC justice in 1981. Andrew Jackson appointed the first Catholic SC justice, Roger Taney, in 1836.
The largest Protestant group in the United States are the Baptists, but there have been only 3 Baptist justices. There have only been 5 Methodist justices; Methodists being the 2nd largest Protestant denomination. And there has never been a Pentecostal justice.
Throughout history most of the SC justices have been Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Unitarian, and Jews. I have obtained these stats from Christianity Today which discusses more of the ramifications of religion on the Supreme Court. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/mayweb-only/29-22.0.html?paging=off
The Huffington Post asks the Uncomfortable Question: "Should We Have Six Catholics on the Supreme Court?"
Huffington Post brazenly asks whether a Catholic can be a good citizen? And whether a Catholic can be an impartial judge ? I assume that Huffington has no problem with Catholics like Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden.
An aside, a little bit off topic, but relating to the recent "Catholic" decision on the Hobby Lobby case; now that closely held companies have been granted certain freedoms of religion, should I form an LLC (Limited Liability Company) to get those same rights?
The point being, Hobby Lobby does not have to buy abortifacients for its employees. Presumably the government will now find a way to provide them free with my tax dollars. Hobby Lobby has been freed from that burden, but the average tax payer/citizen has not. But what are my rights if I am a self-employed company of 1 with an LLC?
This Protestant doesn’t have a problem with Catholics on the supreme court.
Ah, the new anti-Dreyfusards.
I want constitutionalists on the SC. I don't really care what religion they practice.
I wouldn’t have guessed that Clarence Thomas was Catholic!
And look how all the Jews voted. And this isn’t the same problem?
For leftists it's all about diversity and tolerance ... except when it isn't.
Too many homos on the SC?
Too many Communists in this administration?
If a headcount is going to be taken and people are going to be litus tested, Catholicism is the least of my worries about someone’s worldview.
They aren't Catholic.
No, there’s no problem with how the Jewish justices voted, because they voted for the liberal view of this case.
If justices vote the way liberals want them to, then an issue of what religion they are, or any other characteristics about them, will never be mentioned. It’s only when the left is angry about how a vote comes down, that they delve into what would otherwise be bigoted territory such as what religion they are.
Liberals should also read their Constitution, and they would find out there that religious tests for public office are specifically and explicitly not allowed by that Constitution.
Thomas is a Catholic convert (like me). He has written about it.
Catholics aren’t the problem. Libtards are the problem, including fake Catholics.
For an idiology that supposedly loves everyone and doesn’t want descrimination, it is funny to watch how closely the Left keeps tabs on quotas.
That is of course until it comes to politics amongst university and education in general professors and teachers.
The left has always made a big deal about religion as not being a condition of holding public office. All of a sudden....Religion is an issue??
Wonder if the Huff’ers would like 6 or 7 Mooselums on the bench?
The leftists in the Ruling Class have something on Roberts. He's compromised. I'm not sure how, but I'm convinced of it. It's the only explanation I can think of for his utterly mad 0bamacare decision.
Most likely they are Nethinims.
the libleft probably think it’s time for a muslim on the USSC
no loyalty issues there ....
look for Obama team to have muslim brotherhood guy already groomed to replace Ruth Buzzy Ginsburg
Ah, so now the LW has a problem with religion (They always have had a problem with religion) but the SC used rule of law and the constitution as a guideline for their decision. Why bring up something that didn’t have an effect on the decision unless you are trying to lie to the American people?