Skip to main content

John Paul Stevens will retire. He calls himself a conservative, and he was, in the old sense. The MSM calls him "the leader of the liberal wing of the court," but they say that because they are stupid. The old guy respected the rule of law and his place in its administration. He decided cases & controversies and stopped. That was his job. He wasn't on the court to run the country, to set policy, to make sure that all those pesky elections didn't matter.

A Republican, President Gerald Ford, put him up for the post and he's been a free agent ever since, as the position dictates, free from partisan strings and influence. John Paul Stevens has done well by us. Thanks!

President Bill Clinton used to say that our government should look like the rest of America. We don't need quotas, but we should be aware of who is included in our institutions and who is left out.

John Paul Stevens is the last Protestant Justice on the United States Supreme Court.

Just say'n.

A tad more than half of Americans are Protestant, or at least tied culturally to the Protestant experience. (I'm a Jeffersonian Secular Protestant myself.) Yet, for the first time, the country that they are primarily credited with founding may find itself without any Protestants on its highest court. Out of 9 Justices, not one. Zip.

That is very strange. What does it say about the process involved? That the majority of Americans are culled out? That Protestants never make the grade? Is there a inner-circle, a cabal, of power brokers who are biased against Protestants? Maybe so. The SCOTUS, in most Americans' eyes, may be an entity that doesn't encompass their experiences and beliefs, where not one member cares about what they hold most dear.

When Jews are excluded from some position which they are qualified, Jews, to their great credit, speak up. If the exclusion is extreme, then questions of anti-Semitism arise, true? The same goes for everyone else, equally. The exclusion of Protestants in this case can't be explained away. They are banned, apparently.

If justices were selected randomly, then 4 or 5 would be Protestant, given the odds.

If only 3, then one might suggest a mere statistical quirk.

If only 2 were Protestant, eyebrows would be raised.

Only 1? The process appears to hate Protestants.

None? A rampant bigotry is involved, surely.

The last thing the Democratic Party needs is to give the very real evidence that those running the country from within the beltway are not in accord with the country at large. It is not a good idea. That is a good way to get kicked out on your ass. Just a few thoughts worth considering.

Originally posted to Otherday on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 02:41 PM PDT.

Poll

John Paul Stevens, the last Protestant Justice.

5%4 votes
4%3 votes
2%2 votes
8%6 votes
38%26 votes
25%17 votes
2%2 votes
11%8 votes

| 68 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (7+ / 0-)

    Greenspan admits his free market faith was "a mistake" - Reliance on self interest creates a flaw "in how the world works."

    by Otherday on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 02:41:26 PM PDT

  •  That was hilarious, presumably unintentionally (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    devtob, Vita Brevis, commonmass

    It's the perfect accompaniment to my Friday-after-work stiff drink.

    When your dream comes true, you're out one dream --The Nields

    by Rich in PA on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 02:44:22 PM PDT

  •  Well, protestants, (7+ / 0-)

    now you know how the atheists and agnostics feel.  Of course, you can console yourselves with the knowledge that, unlike atheists and agnostics, you're well-represented in the other two branches of government, and in pretty much every aspect of government at the state and local levels as well.  Meanwhile, you probably could count on one hand the number of non-believers who hold office in this country and have fingers to spare.  So you'll forgive me if I'm indifferent to this temporary anomaly in the SC.

    •  Protestants send their kids to public school (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      commonmass

      and Catholics send theirs to private (parochial) schools.

      As a result, Catholics are better educated.

      This is the main reason that Catholics are overrepresented (and Protestants under represented)  in the number of Governors, congress members and judges

      •  Heck. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Calamity Jean, commonmass

        President Obama is a Protestant. We only need 1 person, not 100 million.

        There are plenty of candidates in a country of 310,000,000 for an occasional Protestant, true?

        Greenspan admits his free market faith was "a mistake" - Reliance on self interest creates a flaw "in how the world works."

        by Otherday on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 03:13:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  And that is supposed to explain... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        commonmass

        ...someone that is apparently ignorant of his heritage, like Injustice Clarance "Uncle" Thomas?

      •  There is a difference between (0+ / 0-)

        a "Parochial" school and a private Catholic prep school (trust me, I went to one).

        "Parochial" means "of a parish" and these schools are connected to a particular parish. These days they are rarely high schools, and are more often to be K-8th grade. So, St. Mary's Roman Catholic Church in say, Anytown, USA might have St. Mary's School attached to the parish. This is a parochial school.

        Take the non-parochial school I attended, Strake Jesuit College Prepatory in Houston, Texas. As the name suggests, it was run by the Society of Jesus, a religious order, and was not affiliated with any particular parish of the (then) Diocese of Galveston-Houston.

        Just a little clarification for the Protestant majority. ;)

        Jesus used to live in my heart, until I upped the rent. I think He moved to Dorchester. If you see Him, tell Him He owes me 35 dollars for a parking ticket.

        by commonmass on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 03:30:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  And of course, having (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          enhydra lutris

          a good Catholic education, I misspelled "preparatory". See, those Catholic educations are far superior.......

          Jesus used to live in my heart, until I upped the rent. I think He moved to Dorchester. If you see Him, tell Him He owes me 35 dollars for a parking ticket.

          by commonmass on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 03:32:06 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I'd pit an Episcopal prep school, curriculum-wise (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        blueoasis

        against a Catholic one any day.

        /atheist who went to St. Mark's in Dallas

        Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

        by Robobagpiper on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 03:55:18 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Some--not all--Catholics send their kids (0+ / 0-)

        to Catholic private schools.  This is an important distinction, because many of those Protestants send their kids to private schools too--they just happen to be private schools where they're taught flat-earth pseudoscience and indoctrinated with nonsense.  Our public schools are as good as they can be, given the limitations they have to deal with from both our government and the parents of their students.

        •  Sounds Biased. (0+ / 0-)

          I sent my son to an Episcopal high school and he did well. I hate to surprise you, but they didn't talk about the flat earth at all - they were too busy qualifying for the Intel Science Fair.

          Schools have nothing to do with this argument. Stevens, and Souter before him, did their jobs well on the SCOTUS. It wouldn't be so hard to find similar justices if the system was so disposed - the problem is that it isn't. The door appears to be shut on Protestants.

          Greenspan admits his free market faith was "a mistake" - Reliance on self interest creates a flaw "in how the world works."

          by Otherday on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 04:11:03 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  My heart bleeds for you, really. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            dnta, john07801

            Maybe you should get your Protestant president and your 54% Protestant majority in Congress to do something about that.

            By the way:

            David Souter: Episcopalian
            Sandra Day O'Connor: Episcopalian
            William H. Rehnquist: Lutheran

            And a sizeable majority of SC justices throughout history have been Protestants. Meanwhile, not a single professed non-believer in the Court's history.  Not a single professed non-believer in the history of the Presidency.  And I'd be stunned if there's been any more than a couple of professed non-believers out of the thousands who have held office in our Congress over the course of 230+ years.

            The absence of Protestants on the SC once Stevens leaves (assuming he isn't replaced with a Protestant) is a historical anomaly. Get over it.

            •  Sadly, 0 of 9 shows something unseemly. (0+ / 0-)

              Might just as well put up a sign on the SC building: "No Protestants Allowed."

              Greenspan admits his free market faith was "a mistake" - Reliance on self interest creates a flaw "in how the world works."

              by Otherday on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 04:31:39 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You keep saying that, (0+ / 0-)

                and yet 235 years of American political history suggests otherwise.  Again, it's an anomaly.  Get over it.

                •  How do you know that? (0+ / 0-)

                  235 years also suggest that prejudice is something to guard against, right?

                  If the process no longer admits Protestants to the SCOTUS, then it wouldn't be a bad idea for those 50%+ of Americans, and those who care about their welfare, to ask why that is the case.

                  Greenspan admits his free market faith was "a mistake" - Reliance on self interest creates a flaw "in how the world works."

                  by Otherday on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 05:56:00 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Prejudice?!? (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Big Tex

                    Now you're a victim?

                    I used to be Snow White...but I drifted.

                    by john07801 on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 07:27:33 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Every President since Kennedy (0+ / 0-)

                    has been a Protestant.  None of the people currently on the Supreme Court was appointed by anyone except a Protestant.  Congress has been controlled by Protestants since the beginning of the Republic.

                    The idea that the process no longer admits Protestants is rubbish.  The idea that Protestant Presidents and a Protestant-controlled Congress have some sort of prejudice against their own kind is a figment of your overactive imagination.  If you really want a Supreme Court that reflects America, get to work getting more women on that court.  Get a nonbeliever on that court.  Get a gay man and a lesbian on that court.  But most importantly, get over your white, male, Protestant sense of entitlement.

  •  No Protestants means no evangelicals (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    devtob, Big Tex, john07801, enhydra lutris

    so maybe we should count our blessings that the Court isn't truly representative of America.

    •  No Martin Luthur King either. (4+ / 0-)

      Ask yourself, why did you automatically jump to the evangelical tag? What does that say about you?

      Greenspan admits his free market faith was "a mistake" - Reliance on self interest creates a flaw "in how the world works."

      by Otherday on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 03:04:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  What does it say about you (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dnta, john07801

        that despite 235 years of Protestant dominance of the American political system, a Protestant president, and a solid Protestant majority in Congress, you're willing to take a hypothetical absence of Protestants on the Supreme Court that hasn't even taken place yet and turn it into some sort of a conspiracy?

        Who do you think is responsible for the possible future absence of Protestants in the SC?  Is it the Protestant in the White House, or the Protestants in Congress?

        •  Senate Judiciary Committee holds the key. (0+ / 0-)

          I also think that the various Protestant presidents have put forward non-Protestant nominees, in part, for coalition-building purposes, or thank-yous for help in getting elected.

          GOP presidents have been trying to get the support of Catholics since Reagan's time; Clinton nominated two Jewish justices for similar reasons, in part.

          Greenspan admits his free market faith was "a mistake" - Reliance on self interest creates a flaw "in how the world works."

          by Otherday on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 05:59:09 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well, then I guess (0+ / 0-)

            you Protestants will just have to settle with what little you have now: your death grip on the other two branches of the federal government, your extensive control of government at the state and local level, and your control and/or ownership of most businesses, most of this country's land and wealth, the media, and the military.  Don't worry, someday your downtrodden people will overcome this travesty of self-discrimination and reassume your rightful control of the one tiny little morsel of power in this country that you temporarily gave up for political purposes.  In the interim, might I suggest learning the words to the song "We Shall Overcome," and perhaps getting to work organizing your March on Washington.

      •  What does it say about me? (0+ / 0-)

        I don't know. Why don't you tell me what it says about me? I should warn you, given the way this is already going, there's a pretty good chance you'll be wrong.

    •  Works for me (0+ / 0-)

      Maybe we could then focus on the needs of the people and not the disguised needs of Armageddon-prep.

      I used to be Snow White...but I drifted.

      by john07801 on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 07:29:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Stevens is also the only veteran (0+ / 0-)

    on the Court, which occasioned this rant from Phyllis Schafly:

    Considering President Obama's weak and highly unpopular track record on national defense issues, specifically his decision to try known terrorists in criminal court rather than in military tribunals and his recent announcement about U.S. nuclear disarmament, it is critical that President Obama replace a military veteran judge with another military veteran judge.

    A public option for health insurance is a national priority.

    by devtob on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 03:02:40 PM PDT

  •  I demand a snake handling Holy Roller (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    devtob, Big Tex

    or at least a proto-Buddhist atheist just like me.  Woopy-doopy, when it was all propertied white men it was all protestants--yessir, then you were represented.  Let's all go back to Hoover times! That's the Ticket!

    "It's too LATE to stop now!" - John Lee Hooker

    by Rolfyboy6 on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 03:05:53 PM PDT

    •  Stevens was fine. (0+ / 0-)

      Why not another guy like him? He did well by us.

      We don't have to go back to "Hoover times", of course. Why not address the issue?

      Greenspan admits his free market faith was "a mistake" - Reliance on self interest creates a flaw "in how the world works."

      by Otherday on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 03:11:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Ah, but that's not the thesis of this diary, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        john07801

        is it?  The diarist wants someone who looks and prays just like him.

        "It's too LATE to stop now!" - John Lee Hooker

        by Rolfyboy6 on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 03:46:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No, A SCOTUS that is like America. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Cassandra Waites

          4 or 5 Justices, on average, ought to be women. Because that would reflect the American reality.

          You think that Zero justices out of nine is just fine when it comes to Protestants, even though most Americans consider themselves to be Protestant. I would suggest that about 4 or 5 ought to be Protestants, on average, just because Americans are.

          Like a mirror, sort of.

          Greenspan admits his free market faith was "a mistake" - Reliance on self interest creates a flaw "in how the world works."

          by Otherday on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 03:50:49 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Quota monger (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            john07801

            I'm about to start posting recipes over your inability to conceive of being represented by people that you see as being not like you.

            "It's too LATE to stop now!" - John Lee Hooker

            by Rolfyboy6 on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 03:57:51 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Alito, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              wsexson, blueoasis

              5 conservative, even fundamentalist, Catholics. Ouch.

              Post your recipes, if you must, but this is no laughing matter. Why were those wingnut Catholics OK for the court, while less crazy Protestants weren't good enough? Strange.

              Greenspan admits his free market faith was "a mistake" - Reliance on self interest creates a flaw "in how the world works."

              by Otherday on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 04:00:07 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  What does the conservative block's (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                john07801

                religion have to do with your thesis that Obama should appoint a protestant?  They are conservatives not priests.  He should appoint a liberal or moderate regardless of religion. This is about law, not religion. Are you saying that the religion and the politics are automatically tied together?

                Son, When you're down in a hole the first thing to do is to stop digging.

                "It's too LATE to stop now!" - John Lee Hooker

                by Rolfyboy6 on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 04:17:55 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  "A SCOTUS that is like America" (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            john07801

            4 or 5 Justices, on average, ought to be women. Because that would reflect the American reality.

            And yet, despite the fact that we've only ever had 3 women on the SC, you think the pressing problem is a lack of Protestants.  Funny how that works.

            •  Yes, 4 or 5 women would be great! (0+ / 0-)

              A Protestant woman would be a two-fer!

              Greenspan admits his free market faith was "a mistake" - Reliance on self interest creates a flaw "in how the world works."

              by Otherday on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 06:00:00 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Not for me it wouldn't. (0+ / 0-)

                But then, I'm not a Protestant, just a lowly agnostic.  This quota scheme that you want to impose on the Supreme Court will permanently exclude me and other non-believers from ever having any representation on the bench, but that's okay, because what really matters is that you and your fellows in the most powerful religious demographic in the country have full control of everything at all times.

                Tell you what, I'll make a deal with you: when the other two branches of the Supreme Court represent the religious, racial, gender and sexual orientation makeup of the rest of the country, then we'll get to work getting you your 5 Protestants on the bench.  Until then, don't bother me with this shit.

      •  Why not an atheist? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        john07801

        Since, you know, we've never actually had one of those.

  •  Still no atheists on the court, but then again I (5+ / 0-)

    haven't seen any pigs flying lately.

  •  The issue isn't Stevens' protestantism, (5+ / 0-)

    but the obedient Catholicism of the five conservative justices on the Roberts Court.

    •  Yes, 5 Fundamentalist Catholics for Life. (4+ / 0-)

      We're screwed. Those 5 Catholics will toe the Reagan/Bush line for the rest of our lives.

      Greenspan admits his free market faith was "a mistake" - Reliance on self interest creates a flaw "in how the world works."

      by Otherday on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 03:14:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Or until such time... (0+ / 0-)

        ...as someone is so startled seeing a couple of them crossing the street in from of their motor vechile, that the person mistakes the gas pedal for the brake, accidental-like, of course.

        •  Unnecessary (0+ / 0-)

          I prefer to think that one of the hyper-conservative justices will spontaneously keel over at the sudden recognition of a lifetime of really poor decisions.

          Californians: The Courage Campaign is working for changing the 2/3 budget rule and for ending Prop 8. Go!

          by tmo on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 05:56:20 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I hope that was just poor humor (0+ / 0-)

          We have been vociferous in our condemnation of the right wing's suggestion that democrats should be killed for their health care votes ... Now you suggest that members of the SC would be good targets.  Shame on you. And shame on us that you haven't been called on your sick suggestion

          •  OK, then. But I ask you this: (0+ / 0-)

            If you were driving down the street, and suddenly Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas suddenly stepped out in front of your car (just far enough ahead of you for you to stop from striking them if you hit the brakes immediately), would you be able to do so?

  •  Definitely (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Calamity Jean

    We should be arguing about which invisible entity we believe in...and really, how we worship said invisible entity. And that's how law should be interpreted.

    I don't care if you only eat fish on Fridays or dunk your kids instead of sprinkling them. Kneel at a wall or kneel in front of a priest. Light candles and incense or light a spirit pipe.

    It's all six of one/half dozen of the other to me, and I find it all equally ridiculous. And I don't see what any of it has to do with the business of law or government.

    The old man was right. Only the farmers won. We lost. We always lose.

    by GrouchoKossak on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 03:24:11 PM PDT

  •  Remember When Catholicism Wasn't Mainstream (5+ / 0-)

    Before Kennedy's election, Roman Catholics were thought to be not quite like Protestant Americans because of perceived divided loyalties.
     Todays Supreme Court shows just how mainstream the church has gone.
    That is if hard right wingnuttery is considered mainstream.
    John Paul II forged an emotional bond with Reagan based on their mutual disdain for communism and with the appointment of conservative Bishops and Cardinals, Catholicism and Republicanism found a happy middle ground.
     Who would have guessed that Southern Baptists and Catholics would be allies and they both seek to make America a more theocratic state.
     The Supreme Court could use a few members who come from the historic Congregational faiths of New England.

  •  You forgot one in the poll: (4+ / 0-)

    Religion doesn't matter.

    It's bad luck to be superstitious.

    by DreamyAJ on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 03:35:27 PM PDT

    •  Yes it does. (3+ / 0-)

      Say to any observant Jew, Catholic, or Muslim: "Religion doesn't matter." And he/she will be offended, of course. Same for many other people.

      Religion should be irrelevant when it comes to governing, but few people are happy when their group/tribe/congregation/race is excluded, even if things seem to be run fairly. It is best to be inclusive.

      Greenspan admits his free market faith was "a mistake" - Reliance on self interest creates a flaw "in how the world works."

      by Otherday on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 03:45:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  No Westerners or Mid-Westerners, either! (0+ / 0-)

    The Court is geographically challenged.

    Here comes LeRoy Jenkins!!

    by RockyLabor on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 03:56:05 PM PDT

    •  Yes. Too Many Ivy Leaguers. (0+ / 0-)

      Open the club house doors a little. The same old cronies get all the spots.

      Greenspan admits his free market faith was "a mistake" - Reliance on self interest creates a flaw "in how the world works."

      by Otherday on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 03:57:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  If you think the Catholic Five (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Big Tex, Calamity Jean

    were selected because they were Catholic--well, you're kinda right. Their appointers wanted hardline cosnervative anti-choice types--and they knew if they chose a Catholic and people objected to them on that point, they could yell religiuous discrimiantion.

    Hrder to do that with a Protestant.

    In other words, being Catholic just made 'em harder to fight.

    ANd theya re NOT reperesentative of AMerican Cahtolics, the majority of whom are pro-chocie, or at least don't want abortion banned.

    The last time we mixed religion and politics people got burned at the stake.

    by irishwitch on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 04:22:05 PM PDT

    •  I think you're right. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      irishwitch, Calamity Jean

      DEMs have a hard time opposing Catholics, and Reagan/Bushies wanted to court the Catholic vote - so all those Catholic wingnuts waltzed right in. Too bad there wasn't a William Brennan in the lot.

      Note that the Catholic justices have been, by and large, predictably true to the views of their patrons. Same for the 2 Jewish justices appointed by Clinton. It is the Protestant Justices, in the main, who have slipped the leash of partisanship and followed their sense of justice. That may explain why both parties have turned away from Protestants? Because, based upon history, they won't take orders very well?

      Greenspan admits his free market faith was "a mistake" - Reliance on self interest creates a flaw "in how the world works."

      by Otherday on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 04:29:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  If Phil Donahue Catholic rather than (0+ / 0-)

        Bill DOnahue Catholics had been chosen, they'd have been liberal--but Reagan, Bush I and II wanted right-wing Catholics who really don't representt he Ctholic tradition I was raised in--solid liberal Dems.

        The last time we mixed religion and politics people got burned at the stake.

        by irishwitch on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 04:37:08 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I hear you. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          irishwitch

          William Brennan was about as great a liberal/progressive champion as ever sat on that court. The men who got onto the court have shown themselves to be a small slice of the wingnut Catholic experience.

          Consider Bush v. Gore. Consider Citizens United. Our poor country.

          Greenspan admits his free market faith was "a mistake" - Reliance on self interest creates a flaw "in how the world works."

          by Otherday on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 04:41:29 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  The Church We were raised in........ (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bleedingheartliberal218

    in gone and has been replaced by a single issue church that interferes in each election cycle by reminding voters that you can't be a good Catholic and vote for Democrats like Obama or Biden and it provides score cards on candidates all the way down to local elections.
    In addition, they try to bully Catholic politicians into voting as the Church sees fit or else don't show up for communion.
    There is no John XXIII type on the horizon to save this sinking ship and as it stands right now, it may not deserve to be saved.

  •  Because (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Big Tex, john07801

    Protestants are such a disadvantaged demographic.

    The Teabaggers are the GOP base

    by stevej on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 04:57:16 PM PDT

    •  Protestants on the Court: None? (0+ / 0-)

      Actually, they are underrepresented by a substantial margin, "disadvantaged" even, if they are excluded because of their religion.

      Greenspan admits his free market faith was "a mistake" - Reliance on self interest creates a flaw "in how the world works."

      by Otherday on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 05:04:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Level of Abstraction (0+ / 0-)

    Sure, it would be weird not to have a protestant.

    But the majority of the justices will be Christian no matter what.

    Is there really such a huge difference between protestants and Catholics in a way that would materially affect a justice's decision-making?

    And we don't have any black females.  Or asians.  Or homosexuals.

    And if a Lutheran was nominated, what about the Baptists?  

    You see where I'm going with this.

    I think 5 or 6 Christians is sufficient.

    The day may come, when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been withholden from them but by the hand of tyranny.

    by Tetris on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 05:36:13 PM PDT

    •  Maybe you're right. (0+ / 0-)

      But then consider the Citizens United case that was just decided - 5 wingnut Catholic justices suggest that we can't restrict corporate money in our election campaigns? It's hard to think of a ruling that threatens our democratic system more than that. By letting big-buck elites control our government, it is a way to take power from the congregation/population and give it back to the powerful few. Kind of.

      Greenspan admits his free market faith was "a mistake" - Reliance on self interest creates a flaw "in how the world works."

      by Otherday on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 06:04:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Don't ask (0+ / 0-)

      my protagonist Irish Protestant father or devout Irish Catholic mother:

      Is there really such a huge difference between protestants and Catholics in a way that would materially affect a justice's decision-making?

      Is it any wonder why I'm atheistic?

      I've worked long and hard for civil rights and find my co-volunteer workers are generally of one faith (which I won't identify).  And they don't mention it either.

      I wish there were more Protestants condemning today's nutcase-Evangelicals rather than simply disambiguating themselves from them.  Personally, I won't miss them anytime they disappear.

      I used to be Snow White...but I drifted.

      by john07801 on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 06:54:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The Pedophile Priests Avoid Criminal Prosecution (0+ / 0-)

    because of the overwhelming number of Catholics on the bench in Pennsylvania.  

    Pennsylvania "judges" protect the Church of the Holy Child Molesters from criminal prosecutions and civil lawsuits systematically citing expiration of the statute of limitations as the reason that nothing can be done legally about the horrific situation.

  •  What if this SCOTUS overruled Roe? (0+ / 0-)

    Let's say the vote is 5-4, with all 5 being the usual fundamentalist, right-wing Catholics.

    How could such a decision be sold to the public without it appearing to be based upon their own theocratic beliefs? All 5 Catholic justices come up a decision that is in accord with the Vatican teachings - and the 2/3rds of Americans who aren't Catholics are just supposed to nod and smile?

    Better to make the court a mirror on society, a diverse collection of people that reflects the old US of A.

    Greenspan admits his free market faith was "a mistake" - Reliance on self interest creates a flaw "in how the world works."

    by Otherday on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 06:46:43 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site