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.
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.