[Faith Presses On]

I don’t believe in many Catholic beliefs and don’t believe that Christianity should be represented on the Supreme Court even mostly by Roman Catholicism.

[narses]

In the Religion forum, on a thread titled Conservatives on the Supreme Court: All Catholic (vanity), Faith Presses On wrote:

I don’t believe in many Catholic beliefs and don’t believe that Christianity should be represented on the Supreme Court even mostly by Roman Catholicism.

[grellis]

I don’t believe in many Catholic beliefs and don’t believe that Christianity should be represented on the Supreme Court even mostly by Roman Catholicism.

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?

[BlackElk]

FPO:

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!

[Mrs. Don-o]

"Christianity" isn't to be "represented" in the USSC: we do not have some sort of "proportionate representation system" in the courts. In fact, the idea of the USSC is very simple: the Constitution is to be represented, interpreted and applied.

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??

[Dr. Sivana]

I don’t believe in many Catholic beliefs and don’t believe that Christianity should be represented on the Supreme Court even mostly by Roman Catholicism.

You don't see the irony in having a religious test to determine who should be interpreting the Constitution that says "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." (Article VI)?