How about evangelicals speaking out on the differences between their beliefs and those of Catholicism, and expressing to the GOP that while we’ll work with Catholics, these differences still matter, and it is not acceptable, for example, to represent Christianity on the SC entirely or even mostly with Catholics. There are still foundational differences in our beliefs and how we see things, and they often make a difference in judging things.
Just what could possibly be the point of your agreement with the Huffington Post that there are too many Catholics on the SCOTUS? I am a Catholic who would gladly defer to Reformed (and serious) Christians to replace Sotomayor (in ten seconds flat) and probably Anthony (Sandra Day) O'Kennedy and Chief Justice Roberts (given the infamous vote that saved Obozocare. Evangelicals are obviously the most under-represented religion on SCOTUS.
The most over-represented religion (whether by faith or ancestral identification) would be Jews and a lot of Jews here can probably speak for themselves on the subject better than I can speak for them but might well be willing to trade in Kagan and one of the other two. That's up to them.
If we can elect a POTUS worth electing (and I don't care a whit whether Catholic or not since another Ronaldus Maximus would do fine) and he or she can nominate the successors, he or she should feel free to appoint as many Reformed Christians as they please. Being chosen for SCOTUS is serious business not analogous to electing a prom queen and claiming bragging rights for one's ethnic or religious group.
Of very great importance is to avoid unnecessary doctrinal squabbling, particularly among actual conservatives to the detriment of movement and country. Neither Catholic Justices nor any others are going to be asked to rule on such Catholic doctines as the perpetual virginity of Mary, her immaculate conception, her assumption into heaven, the Real Presence of Jesus Christ, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Holy Eucharist, etc., etc., etc. No Reformed Christian on SCOTUS will be asked to render decisions on Scripture, sola or otherwise, Luther's Theses, Jean Cauvin's beiefs and writings or any other such matters.
I believe that Catholics and Evangelicals alike on a POLITICAL website can manage to practice their respective faiths (which agree on about 95%) without rubbing one anothers' noses in the 5% that is the difference.
You would not favor David Souter, John Paul Stevens, Herod Blackmun, Potter Stewart, Earl Warren and the like any more than I would favor Sonia Sotomayor, William Brennan, any Hyannisport related Kennedy, the late Fr. Robert Drinan, or John Kerry. The reason is not their respective claims of religious affiliation (mostly bogus) but rather their insufferable secular beliefs. The day that worthwhile members of your religious persuasion/commitment or whatever are nominated and confirmed will cause this Catholic joy not trepidation and, especially, if the appointee(s) is/are very young, very healthy and has/have a stiff backbone.
You get the last word since I try to avoid these conflicts.
“How about evangelicals speaking out on the differences between their beliefs and those of Catholicism, and expressing to the GOP that while we’ll work with Catholics, these differences still matter, and it is not acceptable, for example, to represent Christianity on the SC entirely or even mostly with Catholics.”
What makes you think the Presidents who nominate Catholics to the SC all the time don’t already know what Evangelicals think of Catholic practices? I mean what’s your theory on why they don’t care what Evangelicals think who are concerned about the religious differences of Catholics enough to not want them on the supreme court no matter how conservative they seem?
FReegards