• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Number of Catholics on the Supreme Court ?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
It is a fact that the process of selecting justices involves both political branches, it isn't an opinion.

so far nobody has propogated any explanation for why the process was designed this way, that refutes what I have said; all that has been expressed is a complete lack of thought about the fact, or no understanding of representative democracy.

 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,561
3
0
Its just good politics.
The evangelical Protestants which have sworn allegiance to the Republican party has as its primary function the selection of aniti-Abortion judges.
So if a Republican President is to pick an anti-Abortion judge he has satisfied the evangelicals mission and is looking to gain additional political capitol with the appointment. Catholics are a group that generally has supported Democrats so picking a Catholic is a way of poaching a few Demcratic supporters over to the Republican side.

As for the Democrats, they may get Catholic support, but the Catholic agenda, while also having a strong anti-Abortion faction, is predicated on the Catholic belief that to get to heaven you must have faith AND do good works.
Since the Dems position on Abortion is not held by the same nearly universal degree that Protestant evangelical anti abortion position is held, the Catholic voter is more "in play" and more likely to make a voting decision on varied issues. Therefore Dems tend to appoint Catholics to secure their base.

As to Jews, the Republicans want to poach Jewish voters, and the Dems want to shore up support among Jewish voters.

So really Protestants are being shortchanged due to the single mindedness, single issueness of the evangelical Christians whose votes are considered safe as long as an anti-Abortion candidate is put forth. (of course if you're a moron like Harriet Meiers you still can't get on the Supreme Court, unless you're a black moron like Clarence Thomas)
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
Originally posted by: Tom
It is a fact that the process of selecting justices involves both political branches, it isn't an opinion.

so far nobody has propogated any explanation for why the process was designed this way, that refutes what I have said; all that has been expressed is a complete lack of thought about the fact, or no understanding of representative democracy.
Originally posted by: Tom
Where is it stated that the make up of the court is representative of the people.

Also, to force a religion filter starts stepping onto the Constitution where the government shall not dictate a religion.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________


That's kind of my point, except in reverse. How did we end up with 5 Catholic justices if no filter was being applied ?

And as I've said several times, the founders gave the selection of justices to the political branches for a reason, that reason is so the justices represent the people, but not in as direct a way as having the people elect the justices.

If anyone can't see that, then you need a lesson in civics.
The inital framers intention was to have the President select and the Senate advise.

Because they are appointed for life; the reflection of the people could change during the justices term anyhow.

To complain about the number of Catholics is just as bad as complaining about the number of females or the skin color.

 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
Originally posted by: Tom
It is a fact that the process of selecting justices involves both political branches, it isn't an opinion.

so far nobody has propogated any explanation for why the process was designed this way, that refutes what I have said; all that has been expressed is a complete lack of thought about the fact, or no understanding of representative democracy.
Originally posted by: Tom
Where is it stated that the make up of the court is representative of the people.

Also, to force a religion filter starts stepping onto the Constitution where the government shall not dictate a religion.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________


That's kind of my point, except in reverse. How did we end up with 5 Catholic justices if no filter was being applied ?

And as I've said several times, the founders gave the selection of justices to the political branches for a reason, that reason is so the justices represent the people, but not in as direct a way as having the people elect the justices.

If anyone can't see that, then you need a lesson in civics.
The inital framers intention was to have the President select and the Senate advise.

Because they are appointed for life; the reflection of the people could change during the justices term anyhow.

To complain about the number of Catholics is just as bad as complaining about the number of females or the skin color.

 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
"To complain about the number of Catholics is just as bad as complaining about the number of females or the skin color."


or just as good, depending on one's opinion about the appropriateness of having a degree of representation of the diversity of the country reflected on the Court.

 

sdifox

No Lifer
Sep 30, 2005
85,256
9,523
126
Whatever happened to not discriminating based on religion? Has any of the justice made any decisions based on their personal belief rather than the law? If not, why should their religion matter?
 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
Originally posted by: sdifox
Whatever happened to not discriminating based on religion? Has any of the justice made any decisions based on their personal belief rather than the law? If not, why should their religion matter?

It's my opinion it shouldn't. But the evidence is that maybe it has mattered. That's one of the reasons for this thread, to discuss how it is that we have reached this point ?

It isn't realistic to believe it's just a coincidence, imo.


maybe it doesn't make any difference, but whether it does or not, one thing is pretty likely, a majority of the Supreme Court will happen to be Catholic for a very long time, probably at least 20 years, maybe 30.

 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
Originally posted by: Tom
Originally posted by: sdifox
Whatever happened to not discriminating based on religion? Has any of the justice made any decisions based on their personal belief rather than the law? If not, why should their religion matter?

It's my opinion it shouldn't. But the evidence is that maybe it has mattered. That's one of the reasons for this thread, to discuss how it is that we have reached this point ?

It isn't realistic to believe it's just a coincidence, imo.


maybe it doesn't make any difference, but whether it does or not, one thing is pretty likely, a majority of the Supreme Court will happen to be Catholic for a very long time, probably at least 20 years, maybe 30.
Is this more having a theory, then going on a witchhunt to find facts to support/prove the theory.

 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
It isn't a theory that 5 of the justices are catholic.

I don't believe I've offered a theory as to why this is the case other than to say it doesn't seem likely it's a coincidence.

Since you asked though, I assume the Presidents who nominated these justices were either looking for particular philosophies, say judicial conservatives, or looking for particular outcomes.

Assuming the pool of conservative judges would have roughly the same percentages of various religions as the rest of the country, it seems unlikely that the former is how the justices were selected. Maybe that's an incorrect assumption, if the fact is that most conservative justices are catholic, then that is another odd thing to ponder how that has come to be ?



 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
Originally posted by: Tom
It isn't a theory that 5 of the justices are catholic.

I don't believe I've offered a theory as to why this is the case other than to say it doesn't seem likely it's a coincidence.

Since you asked though, I assume the Presidents who nominated these justices were either looking for particular philosophies, say judicial conservatives, or looking for particular outcomes.

Assuming the pool of conservative judges would have roughly the same percentages of various religions as the rest of the country, it seems unlikely that the former is how the justices were selected. Maybe that's an incorrect assumption, if the fact is that most conservative justices are catholic, then that is another odd thing to ponder how that has come to be ?
Originally posted by: Tom

It's my opinion it shouldn't. But the evidence is that maybe it has mattered. That's one of the reasons for this thread, to discuss how it is that we have reached this point ?

It isn't realistic to believe it's just a coincidence, imo.


maybe it doesn't make any difference, but whether it does or not, one thing is pretty likely, a majority of the Supreme Court will happen to be Catholic for a very long time, probably at least 20 years, maybe 30.
My mistake, I forgot to bold the area of your post that I was applying the theory, find the numbers to support it.

First thing would be to look at the percentage of Catholics in the legal profession and then the number that are judges.


 

sdifox

No Lifer
Sep 30, 2005
85,256
9,523
126
Originally posted by: Tom


It's my opinion it shouldn't. But the evidence is that maybe it has mattered. That's one of the reasons for this thread, to discuss how it is that we have reached this point ?

It isn't realistic to believe it's just a coincidence, imo.


maybe it doesn't make any difference, but whether it does or not, one thing is pretty likely, a majority of the Supreme Court will happen to be Catholic for a very long time, probably at least 20 years, maybe 30.
Doesn't the president nominate candidates and the senate decides whether it will confirm said candidate? Of course, if you have a conservative president, your candidate would more likely be conservative than liberal no? So how is it even surprising or strange? If anything you should question why the sanate confirmed said candidate.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY