Posted on 07/03/2014 2:49:02 PM PDT by Faith Presses On
As has been mentioned a lot lately due to the Hobby Lobby decision, the Supreme Court is made up of six Roman Catholics and three Jews. I have been meaning to post about this for awhile and it seems like an appropriate time to.
For me, as an evangelical, I've found it increasingly troubling that all five conservative-voting justices are Roman Catholic. My belief on it is that the trend to select Roman Catholics as the "conservative" pick seems to come from the sense that they are, overall, less likely to strictly follow God's Word than would be an evangelical and to be more receptive to the opinions of man. The trend in politics in recent years is for evangelicals and more conservative Roman Catholics (and mainline Protestants and Jews) to band together, which is appropriate, but the trend seems to have gone too far in that evangelicals are being influenced to overlook and forget about the true and significant differences between evangelical belief and that of Roman Catholicism. Something has gone wrong when five Roman Catholics represent conservative Christians on the Supreme Court.
If you’re going to have a conservative of faith on the Supreme Court it is far better to find a devout Catholic that practices his/her faith. They will never vote for abortion or homosexual marriage. You can not say the same about a conservative protestant. There is no protestant church that has centuries old dogma against abortion of any kind and only marriage of one man and woman, which is a sacrament of the Catholic Church. A protestant might be a conservative but it is left up to him and what he feels is right or wrong when he votes for something. Devout Catholics are taught from birth that abortion is always evil and homosexual marriage is a farce.
Ford nominated John Paul Stevens. He is a Protestant. Republicans thought he was conservative. He ended up being a knee-jerk liberal when on the Supreme Court. He resigned so that Obama could appoint someone more liberal.
Bush nominated David Souter who is a Protestant. Bush chose him over Clarence Thomas who is Catholic. Souter became a doctrinaire liberal when on the Supreme Court. He resigned during his term.
Bush nominated Harriette Myers who is a Protestant. The Senate would not confirm her and she was quickly withdrawn.
One of the great tragedies of the Supreme Court was the organized campaign by the Democrats against Robert Bork who is a Catholic. Bork was an intellectual and a principled conservative. Democrats were afraid of his intelligence and his integrity and used a vicious smear campaign and repeated lies to deny him the nomination.
It is not about religion. It is about principle, intellectual ability and moral courage. The people who have exhibited these qualities the best have been the Catholics on the court: Alito, Scalia and Thomas.
“I know there are some here that most assuredly would want them to”
I can think of nothing specifically Catholic that violates the Constitution.
When Kennedy was running, people were worried that he would be taking orders from “Rome.”
I wonder what such orders might be.
Dear President Kennedy:
Here are your marching orders.
Pray without ceasing. Flee from even the occasion of sin. Review and obey the Ten Commandments. Carry out your sworn duties with faith, hope, and charity. Attend Mass at least weekly. Confess your sins and receive absolution as often as you possibly can, but at least once a week. Receive the Eucharist as often as possible, which ought to be easy for you, you being the President and all.
Signed,
The Pope
All of the justices are New York, New Jersey, California, with the exception of one Georgia.
There’s not a single fly-over justice in the mix. All were trained in the liberal tradition in the nation’s supposedly premier schools on the coasts.
Now you've gone and lost me even more. What are you saying--that the Catholics of the SCOTUS are adjudicating Christian beliefs--and you think that Evangelicals would be less likely to do so??! Seriesly, is that your argument?
And you have yet to respond to my point: Not ONE J-SCOTUS was appointed by a Catholic. Take your beef (and your vague bigotry) to the Executive Branch...you know, the one that nominates all those pesky Catholics in the first place.
Just out of curiosity, in what way has Catholicism--or Christianity in general, for that matter--been pushed by SCOTUS? Could you give me a few specific examples?
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
There can be no religious test according to our Constitution. Would you like to reword your comment? You might want to say, "It is an odd thing, statistically speaking, for the 5 conservative justices all to be Roman Catholic.
For what it's worth, all of the justices, with the exception of Thomas who is from Georgia, are from the coasts and not from flyover country. New York, New Jersey, and California. That's odd, too.
The argument you are making is increasingly incoherent. First you seem to complain about the historical curiosity that 2/3 of SCOTUS is Catholic in some cases simply by baptism (and one presumes you are complaining that the remaining 1/3 are Jewish) and that there are no Protestants (again presumably). Those percentages are certainly out of whack with a cross section of American demographics. So what! Give me a good Reformed Justice (Byron White, William Rehnquist) over a bad "Catholic" Justice (Sonia Sotomayor, William Brennan) any time.
Does this violate a Constitutional guarantee of religious balance among justices that must reflect the demographics of the general public? Barak Insane Obozo: Is that you? Saul Alinsky? Cloward and Piven? Bobby Byrd? Margaret Sanger? Who?
Now you are saying: that you "don't believe that Christianity should be represented on the Supreme Court even mostly by Roman Catholicism." Would you prefer a SCOTUS of nine pagans, nine faithless nones, nine Wiccans, nine atheists?
How about nine justices each with an IQ above room temperature and of whatever religious background with a legitimate copy of the Constitution and reading lessons and subject to both?
Perhaps there are provisions in the Constitution that are invisible to Catholic SCOTUS justices but obvious to all others. Enlighten me. Where in the Constitution did the Founding Fathers provide for a right to employer-paid abortifacient remedies to the non-illness of pregnancy???
America wants to know, needs to know, and we are waiting!
I have known Conservative and liberals in every denomination, but by far the VAST majority of liberals have been the non-Catholics.
The important thing for you to remember is that EVERY SINGLE thing that you know about God that is both good and true was defined by the Catholic Church.
David Souter was a closet democrat and it was George HW Bush’s fault that he was selected for the court and turned into a disaster for conservatives. Bush even admitted he knew nothing of Souter’s judicial temperament when he nominated him. He didn’t know if he was for abortion or against it, for affirmative action or against it. Old man Bush had a brain lock on this appointment. Harriet Mairs was a joke. Bush’s brain Karl Rove must have been in a coma when she was nominated by Bush. NO ONE wanted her. She was 100% unqualified for the court. Roberts was also a wild-card, having been a Federal judge for about 3 years when Bush nominated him. Bush not only nominated him for the court but made him Chief Justice, bypassing all the other more qualified conservatives that sit on the court. Scalia would have been my pick. Roberts will turn out to be another David Souter/Anthony Kennedy, siding with liberals on the court for years to come.
Awwww now you let the secret out. There is secret tunnel underneath the White hose that leads directly to the Vatican. Any time there is a SC opening the GOP President meets with the Pope midway under the Atlantic Ocean to discuss who the next nominee will be.
Ask a stupid question, expect a really sarcastic answer.
If they will do this with all due diligence, all of our churches will have the liberty they need to carry out Christ's mission; and all our people will be able to live their lives like the free men God intends us to be.
You do get that, don't you??
The Protestants turned out to be liberals or did not get confirmed. Three of the five Catholics turned out to be principled conservatives. The other two were less resolute but more principled than any of the other recent Supreme Court judges.
And Kennedy on DOMA last year. Even though I have over time become more and more troubled over Catholic beliefs and practice as I learn more about them, I was still positive on political cooperation. Since Perry helpfully to Romney self-destructed, Santorum was my choice for the GOP nomination and I couldn’t have supported him more than if he’d been evangelical. The Obamacare and DOMA decisions were what made me seriously start to reexamine the idea that whether evangelical or conservative Catholic, it doesn’t matter.
Sounds like secular humanism. How does someone decide when life begins, or define what marriage is?
Given our form of government and Catholicism’s stated beliefs, I can accept some GOP-nominated Catholics. But without evangelical Christians in America, the country would be like Europe’s twin. More than anything else, the GOP base is evangelical Christian and we should be represented on the SC.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.