The Washington Post asks, “Does President Obama’s next Supreme Court nominee need to be a Protestant?”
If Justice John Paul Stevens decides to call it a career after he turns 90 next month, the Supreme Court would for the first time in its history be without a justice belonging to America’s largest religious affiliations.
Perhaps that would mean only that religion is no longer important in the mix of experience and expertise that a president seeks in a Supreme Court nominee. There was a time, of course, in which there was a “Catholic seat” on the court, followed in 1916 with the appointment of the court’s first Jew. The days when one of each seemed sufficient are long over.
Catholics became a majority of the nine-member court in 2006 with the confirmation of Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. Justice Sonia Sotomayor made it six last summer. And the other two justices besides Stevens are Jewish.
Of the 112 Justices who have been appointed to the court, 91 have been from various Protestant denominations, 13 have been Catholics (one other Justice, Sherman Minton, converted to Catholicism after leaving the Court) and seven have been Jewish. Mainline Protestants have historically been overrepresented (Although Episcopalians constitute only 2 percent of the population, they have made up 34 percent of the court) while evangelical Protestants have been all but non-existent (there have been as many Quakers and Huguenots on the court as Southern Baptist—one from each denomination).
I think I can speak for many of my fellow conservative evangelicals, however, in saying that even if the quota wasn’t going to go to another mainline Protestant WASP, we wouldn’t have much interest in a religious affirmative action program. Personally, I’d rather have someone on the bench like Scalia, Thomas, or Roberts who shares my judicial philosophy than have a quota for someone merely because they can share a pew with me on Sunday morning.
(Via: Frank Lockwood)
March 10th, 2010 | 10:59 am
Notice, Supreme Court Justices are mostly members of liturgical churches. The courtroom itself is one of the few practitioners of secular liturgy. )Another that comes to mind is the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier.) This is surely a rich mine for evaluation regarding the use and function of liturgics. Why does the court require a quasi-religious expression? Is it a co-option of religious gravitas? Is it a legitimate expression of a public belief in unseen realities?
March 10th, 2010 | 11:23 am
My guess is that it’s not a function of the liturgical basis of the church, but of the fact that the Catholic tradition has a long history of natural law and natural theology that sees good human law as a reflection of the divine law and as a product of human reason that is in accord with divine reason. Inasmuch as Protestants have rejected natural law and natural theology (and I’m overly-generalizing here) they might lack the theological foundation to see the practice of law and of reason as itself a religious experience. And I would suggest that Jewish members of the court have a similar perspective. Obviously there are lots of Protestant attorneys in the world, but my point is that perhaps growing up in an environment of natural law subconsciously affects those who go on to practice it in different ways.
March 10th, 2010 | 11:57 am
It’s not correct to say that “evangelical Protestants” are scarcely represented, since the mainline Protestant churches (especially Presbyterian and Methodist, and not a few Episcopalians at one point) would have been considered “evangelical” in doctrine until the 20th century. Many denominations even see themselves as continuing the evangelical faith of their mainline sister churches (e.g., the PCA and OPC vs. the PCUSA). Baptists, of course, are an especially “pietistic” form of evangelical faith — not well-suited for legal studies — so I’ll grant that point.
March 10th, 2010 | 12:14 pm
Kevin Davis It’s not correct to say that “evangelical Protestants” are scarcely represented, since the mainline Protestant churches (especially Presbyterian and Methodist, and not a few Episcopalians at one point) would have been considered “evangelical” in doctrine until the 20th century.
But over half of the Presbyterians (6 of 10) and almost all of the Methodists (3 of 5) were from the 20th century, after those denominations became less evangelical.
Many denominations even see themselves as continuing the evangelical faith of their mainline sister churches (e.g., the PCA and OPC vs. the PCUSA).
I agree. But I don’t think any of those denominations are represented.
Baptists, of course, are an especially “pietistic” form of evangelical faith — not well-suited for legal studies — so I’ll grant that point.
I’m not sure I understand your point. Baptists are much less pietistic than Methodists, Lutheran, Quakers—all of whom are represented in numbers that exceed their occurrence in the general population.
March 10th, 2010 | 12:47 pm
American courtroom procedures, as inherited from England, as inherited from Rome, are contemporary with or even predate catholic (i.e., Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, etc.) liturgies. It would be hard to say whether churches co-opted ancient court procedures or the courts co-opted catholic liturgics. I think there was a lot of cross-pollination.
Serious matters demand formality. This is why the courtroom requires quasi-religious expression. Formal procedures are especially important in conflict resolution. Otherwise things get out of hand, either with deceit or violence.
March 10th, 2010 | 7:35 pm
The short answer to Mr Carter is “no”, since “Protestant” (unlike “Jewish”, “Catholic” or “Muslim”) is not a racial or ethnic identifier, but an indicator of personal theological belief. Therefore, a shortage of Protestants on the US Supreme Court does not reflect exclusion of ethnic groups in the way that under-representation of Jews, Catholics or Muslims would.
March 10th, 2010 | 10:44 pm
“Catholic” is a racial or ethnic identifier?
Is it Brazilian or Vietnamese?
March 11th, 2010 | 6:44 pm
A protestant on the High Court? Not if the Tom Brokaws of the world have their way.
March 15th, 2010 | 7:29 am
[...] religious affiliation of recent Supreme Court nominees (it has been tilting very Catholic of late) Joe said this: I think I can speak for many of my fellow conservative evangelicals, however, in saying that even [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact