Is the Supreme Court's Religious Composition a Threat to National Security?

[Mr Skeptic]

The Supreme Court has recently been making the news, or rather that one of the judges is retiring and Obama gets to pick a replacement. Regardless of who he chooses, the judges are mostly Catholic and Jewish. In fact, the Catholics hold a majority.

 

Am I the only one who feels uncomfortable that over half of our Supreme Court subscribes to a religion which states that their leader (a foreigner) is infallible?

[iNow]

You've asked a truly interesting question, however, a large part of me wonders if there is a more pertinent one... Do the justices place the infallibility of their constitution at a higher priority than the infallibility of their pope, and if not, how will (can/does/has) that impact their rulings on cases brought before them?

[Pangloss]

It's been that way for quite a while now. Has it been a problem?

[jackson33]

Actually Stevens (retiring Justice) is the only Protestant left on the SC, 6C-2J current and the front runner to replace Stevens , Elana Kagan is Jewish.

 

Am I the only one who feels uncomfortable that over half of our Supreme Court subscribes to a religion which states that their leader (a foreigner) is infallible? [/Quote]

 

Is and may remain 2/3rds plus and the other third is waiting for their messiah to arrive on planet earth.

 

Since there can be no religious test involved (law), in Federal Elections or Nominations, I'm not sure it would even be legal to bring the issue up in the confirmation process, or anyone would have the guts to do so...A particular philosophy, or believe may be linked through their legal history, but Kegan has very little.

 

One interesting thing to remember is the Catholic Church, does NOT favor Abortion and there has been no indication the SC has ever Judged on a religious basis.....Contrary to Obama, Judges are to Judge on the Law, not their own views, their life experience or their religion.

[iNow]

Contrary to Obama, Judges are to Judge on the Law, not their own views, their life experience or their religion.

Just out of curiosity, I wonder if you can offer us one single example of a judgment or decision you feel Obama has made based on his religion. I'd like to better understand what would cause you to levy such a insinuation.

[Mr Skeptic]

It's been that way for quite a while now. Has it been a problem?

 

Has the Pope ever invoked the infallibility privilege with respect to an as-yet undecided case before the Supreme Court?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Has the Pope ever invoked the infallibility privilege with respect to an as-yet undecided case before the Supreme Court?

 

Papal infallibility is rarely invoked. There's a list here:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility#Instances_of_papal_infallibility

 

None seem like Supreme Court material.

[ecoli]

interesting commentary from Razib Kahn on the matter (Gene Expression blog)

 

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/04/it-doesnt-matter-if-theres-no-protestant-on-the-supreme-court/

 

 

There are two big take aways from this chart:

 

1) The group “Protestant” has a huge range of views contingent on denomination or theological conservatism

 

2) The group “Catholic” is solidly in the middle of the distribution between very liberal groups (Jews) and very conservative ones (Evangelicals)

[Pangloss]

Has the Pope ever invoked the infallibility privilege with respect to an as-yet undecided case before the Supreme Court?

 

Has there ever been a case of a Supreme Court decision that was influenced by an external religious dictate or command?

 

But okay, let's say that your fear is legitimate. What do you propose be done about it?

[Mr Skeptic]

Has there ever been a case of a Supreme Court decision that was influenced by an external religious dictate or command?

 

Haven't a clue.

 

But okay, let's say that your fear is legitimate. What do you propose be done about it?

 

Well, it would be nice if the Supreme Court's religious composition more or less matched the country's religious composition. I guess that would take a while...

[Pangloss]

Sure, but what would you propose be done to make that happen?

[Mr Skeptic]

Well, I suppose Obama could pick a justice that would bring the court just a little closer to the general public's religious composition.

 

Mostly I guess I was just surprised and curious about how different the Supreme Court's religious composition was from the general public.

[Pangloss]

Ah. Well the parameters used by the President for a Supreme Court nominee are pretty heavily scrutinized. A religious means test could probably be used, but of course you'd be handing some pretty live ammunition to the conservative pundits. You'd have to weigh that pretty carefully against the benefits, and I'm not sure that there are any.

 

Of course if it were true that the Pope actually leveraged authority over the justices, then that would be a pretty serious matter, and then all bets are off.

[jryan]

You've asked a truly interesting question, however, a large part of me wonders if there is a more pertinent one... Do the justices place the infallibility of their constitution at a higher priority than the infallibility of their pope, and if not, how will (can/does/has) that impact their rulings on cases brought before them?

 

You misunderstand "Papal Infallibility".. but that's not a knock on you, most people don't understand it and give it more importance than intended.

 

Oddly enough, Papal Infallibility has only been used twice in the history of the Church. In both cases it was used to defend liberalization measures in the Church (Vatican Council 1 and 2).

[iNow]

However, per the thread topic, it's not my understanding (or lack thereof) of papal infallibility about which you need to worry. It's the understanding (or lack thereof) among the members of the court.

[jryan]

However, per the thread topic, it's not my understanding (or lack thereof) of papal infallibility about which you need to worry. It's the understanding (or lack thereof) among the members of the court.

 

I would guess that the Catholic Supreme Court Justices, being that they are actually Catholic, understand Papal Infallibility.

[Sisyphus]

I'm not worried about it. The only way in which religion should factor into the choice is if there's evidence those religious beliefs are invoked in making rulings, in which case they shouldn't be nominated in the first place. Any halfway decent lawyer understands separation of personal beliefs, and I don't think Papal influence has been a significant problem so far.

[jackson33]

Originally Posted by jackson33 Contrary to Obama, Judges are to Judge on the Law, not their own views, their life experience or their religion.

 

iNow reply; Just out of curiosity, I wonder if you can offer us one single example of a judgment or decision you feel Obama has made based on his religion. I'd like to better understand what would cause you to levy such a insinuation. [/Quote]

 

Paraphrasing, because I don't feel like looking up a quote, Obama believes life experiences play a role in the nomination of Judges. IMO and from my own understanding, Judges regardless those experiences, their religion or personal opinions, are to rule BASED ON THE LAW. I could bring up "Social Justice" which he has also professed, but here again the Constitution and/or law would need to be changed, for any particular desired ruling to come from any court. The unfortunate reality is that the SC and lower Federal Courts, over recent years (45 years, my opinion) have been establishing law (legislation from the bench) on many issues, slowly nullifying the Constitution or reinterpreting any intended meaning.

[Sisyphus]

Obviously life experience is going to inform one's interpretation of the law. That's inevitable and necessary, and is fact the judge's job. (If no interpretation were necessary, we wouldn't need judges in the first place.) That's different than allowing personal belief to supercede law.