posted
John Paul Stevens is the only Protestant on the Supreme Court. If another Catholic or Jew replaces him, there will be no protestants on the court. Will Obama be mindful of this as he chooses a replacement? Should he mindful? And does this mean that Sotamayor represents the "hispanic seat" and Thomas the "black" seat?
Posts: 83 | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
As long as there are no atheists, I don't see it mattering what particular flavour of crazy the Court subscribes to.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I fail to see how it matters what religion, race, or gender the appointee is.
We could have a Supreme Court made up of 9 White Mormon women for all I care. Make a decision, then have a social afterwards, green jello and all. That way the loser still feels like a winner.
It would be interesting to have 9 former southern baptist pastors as well.
Or clone Richard Dawkins eight times and put them on the stand.
There is no "black seat" or "hispanic seat." Anyone that truly thinks of the seats in this way is not only missing the point of the Supreme Court, but may be racist.
There is no Affirmative Action in the Supreme Court.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I actually DO think religious background a consideration, because however impartial the Supreme Court may be intended to be, obviously they disagree on things. If there were a single "correct" ruling on any issue they would always be unanimous. Given that they do disagree on things, I think it's reasonable to assume that their worldview and personal experience influences their decisions to some some degree.
So yes, I think it is valuable for the Supreme Court to be diverse group. So long as they are all qualified judges with significant experience, I would rather have a group of 9 people with variety of religious, ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds. In a perfect world it would not matter, but we don't live in that world. I wouldn't go out of my way to look for a Jewish or atheist (or black or hispanic) candidate, but if I've narrowed it down to a top group of candidates with relatively equal experience, I would definitely choose one that brings more diversity.
That said, if all the judges are Christian (I'm assuming this is the case although I don't know for sure) then complaining that we're lacking a protestant is pretty silly, when we're already missing atheists, jews, muslims and buddhists, among other possible religious backgrounds.
[ April 12, 2010, 05:10 PM: Message edited by: Raymond Arnold ]
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
While in theory, the court should be beyond those things, I am not sure. For gender, there was a case that convinced me that more women would be a good thing (a teenage girl who objected to having a search of her bra). So, perhaps there would be a case in the future that convinces me of the need for a different religious makeup.
ETA- ok, before I posted, kmboots did give a good ex of a case where religion would matter.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I should have written, "could be a consideration. American Catholics poll pretty much like eveyone else on abortion (and stem cell research).
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
According to wikipedia, the current court is: Roberts (Roman Catholic) Stevens (Protestant) Scalia (Roman Catholic) Kennedy (Roman Catholic) Thomas (Roman Catholic) Ginsburg (Jewish) Breyer (Jewish) Alito (Roman Catholic) Sotomayor (Roman Catholic)
Of course, at least one of those Jews is married to a non-Jew and has an Episcopal priest as a daughter. One assumes not all the Roman Catholics are equally religious either.
Oh, and the two living retired justices are both Episcopalians.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are, oddly enough, a lot of Roman Catholics really interested in high-powered jurisprudence. I have no idea why this is.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Where are the Mormons? I think the last one was George Sutherland in 1922, though he is listed in some places as Episcopal.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Where are the Mormons? I think the last one was George Sutherland in 1922, though he is listed in some places as Episcopal.
There have been 111 justices, Mormons at their greatest numbers today still represent .004% of the population.
Statistically speaking, I can't say how those ratios have played out since Mormonism was founded around 1830. But seeing as how the first woman was appointed to the court in 1981 my sense of justice remains unperturbed (no pun intended).
And also completely nonsensical as I doubt that there's much chance that paedophilia is any higher among Roman Catholics outside the clergy than it is in the general population.
But life is for joking and being nonsensical sometimes.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you for the courtesy. I was "wuh-oh"ing at the potential consequences of such a whistle, not to imply you were threatening me.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: There have been 111 justices, Mormons at their greatest numbers today still represent .004% of the population.
Mormons, if you take self-identifying Mormons, make up 1% of the US population (2% if you include non-self-identifying but still on the church records). Since justices are selected from the US population, that's the appropriate number. However, the larger point that a single Mormon among 100 justices is probably _over_representation is still valid.
I believe the Catholic skew is partially due to abortion politics, and also partially due to the fact that the Catholic vote is a swing vote (and so both Dems and Reps seek to curry favor with the larger demographic by symbolic gestures like appointing Catholic Supreme Court justices).
Also, the country is 1/4 Catholic, and while 2/3 is much bigger than 1/4, it's not that outlandish.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: There have been 111 justices, Mormons at their greatest numbers today still represent .004% of the population.
Mormons, if you take self-identifying Mormons, make up 1% of the US population (2% if you include non-self-identifying but still on the church records). Since justices are selected from the US population, that's the appropriate number. However, the larger point that a single Mormon among 100 justices is probably _over_representation is still valid.
I believe the Catholic skew is partially due to abortion politics, and also partially due to the fact that the Catholic vote is a swing vote (and so both Dems and Reps seek to curry favor with the larger demographic by symbolic gestures like appointing Catholic Supreme Court justices).
Also, the country is 1/4 Catholic, and while 2/3 is much bigger than 1/4, it's not that outlandish.
I tried to use wikis for my numbers, I confess I don't have much confidence in the numbers of Mormons in the US that I found.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:This report puts the number at ~13.8 million. If the population of the US is 300 million, that gives ~4.6%.
That's total church membership. I think about half are in the U.S., and the other half in other parts of the world, mostly South America.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I tried to use wikis for my numbers, I confess I don't have much confidence in the numbers of Mormons in the US that I found.
The wikipedia entry on religious demographics in the US puts the number of Mormons in the US as of 2008 at 3.2 million, or about 1.4% of the US adult population. LDS internal numbers would put the number significantly higher than that, more like 5 million adults, or about 2.2% of the US adult population.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am not saying religion isn't a consideration. I was saying that it wasn't a main one, or one we should be concerned about in relationship to this nomination.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
From wikipedia and various news sources, potential nominees: Diane Pamela Wood (Protestant) Ann Claire Williams (?) Sidney Runyan Thomas (?) Margaret McKeown (?) Johnnie B. Rawlinson (?) etc., etc., etc.
Not easy to find these folks' religious affiliations (if any!) online. Maybe someone else is more motivated than I am.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't have any problem with taking religion into account when it comes to considerations of diversity.
I guess my only problem would be if we took race and gender into account and not religion, though really, economic status should probably factor in there as well, but I suppose finding a qualified judge who grew up poor isn't going to be quite so easy. Though, I suppose Sotomayor might fall into that category.
Anyway, if diversity matters, then I think we should take all demographic factors into account, so that includes religion. I don't think we need to make the Court reflect the demographics of the nation exactly, but having a representative voice would be nice.
rivka -
Of the names I've seen on the short-list:
Jennifer Grahnolm (Roman Catholic) Elena Kagan (Jewish)
Kagan is considered by many to be the front-runner, though liberals aren't particularly pleased about that. If I have a chance tomorrow I'll poke around more to see if I can't find more from more names on the various short lists floating around.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can I point out that the supreme court has no Muslims, Buddhists, or atheists? Where are those groups' "representation." Oh that's right, the judicial branch is not the Senate, and is not meant to be treated that way. How silly of me.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My point isn't that a group of 9 people should somehow be an accurate reflection of America's demographics. That is literally impossible. The point is all things being equal, diversity produces better wisdom than homogeneity. It doesn't matter whether we specifically have an atheist, a muslim, a person from a poor background, and a Chinese-American judge. What matters is we don't have 9 white male christian judges (or, for that matter, 9 female black lesbian atheist judges) making decisions that affect the entire nation.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:The point is all things being equal, diversity produces better wisdom than homogeneity. It doesn't matter whether we specifically have an atheist, a muslim, a person from a poor background, and a Chinese-American judge. What matters is we don't have 9 white male christian judges (or, for that matter, 9 female black lesbian atheist judges) making decisions that affect the entire nation.
But not all types of diversity are equally important. For instance, there are 8 judges whose last name begins with a consonant while there is only one whose last name begins with a vowel. The letter 'S' is particularly overrepresented. Is this a problem? No, it's not a problem - because diversity of last names is a sort of diversity that does little to improve the collective wisdom of the Court on issues of law.
So which sorts of diversity are most important to maintain on the Court? If the Supreme Court were charged with making rules about religion, then religious diversity would be particularly important. But the Court isn't charged with making laws at all; it is charged with interpretting them. That means it matters less that we have justices of different genders or different colors or different religions, and more that we have justices who approach and view the law in different ways. (Shouldn't it be worrisome that almost all members of the Court studied law initially at one of just two law schools?)
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Letters in names plays no demonstrable role in worldview. Religion does, I would say almost by definition. Roe vs Wade is the most of obvious example of this but it plays a role in lots of subtle ways as well.
In a perfect world, race shouldn't be an issue, but we do not live in a perfect world. But one of the "issues" that conservatives had with Sotamayor was her previous statements regarding affirmative action. You don't think her race played a role in those decisions? We are nowhere near a point where racial background does not influence your experiences which in turn influences how you are going to feel about certain laws.
Most of the time, all these things (hopefully) will not affect how someone interprets laws, but given a choice between two equally qualified judges, you are more likely to avoid it becoming an issue if you aren't stacking the court with a particular worldview in the first place.
I don't know offhand how many good law schools there actually ARE, but yes I'd hazard a guess that that is also an issue worth worrying about. I'd have to know more about the differences between law schools before deciding whether that is more or less important that race, religion or gender. But none of these things are remotely on the same level as "letters in your name" and comparing them to that is unfair.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm a little confused about the issue here. We are worried about some supreme court justices being secret atheists?
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I dunno. I think that might actually be representative of a large demographic
In other news, it is surprisingly hard to find the religious backgrounds of those in the Canadian Supreme Court. My google-fu has failed.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Most of the time, all these things (hopefully) will not affect how someone interprets laws, but given a choice between two equally qualified judges, you are more likely to avoid it becoming an issue if you aren't stacking the court with a particular worldview in the first place.
But the trouble is that there's countless categories we could try to balance out in the Court. Republicans/Democrats. Old/Young. Immigrant/Native Born. Urban/Rural. Idealist/Pragmatist. Introvert/Extravert. Married/Single. Parent/Childless. And so on. All of these could impact decisions to some degree or another - but we can't evenly balance out all of them, so the question becomes which are most important for the job that Supreme Court justices do.
Religion probably is fairly high on the list, but I'm not sure if specific denomination is. I'd think that intensity of religiousness is probably more important than denomination - at least when it comes to legal issues, a moderate Catholic is probably more similar to a moderate Protestant than a fundamentalist or extremely devout Protestant is.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the case that convinced me having more women on the court might matter, the issue was what constituted a reasonable search. Ginsburg felt as though the school passed reasonable in checking the girl's bra. The male justices had no problem with that. in this case, Ginsburg was at the time the only one who has probably ever worn a bra. The wording was reasonable and in this case, different genders might very well have different views of reasonable (go to a public swimming pool and most men seem to have no problem exposing their chest. Woman tend to have at least some of it covered, to varying degrees).
In issues of race, someone who has grown up with racial epithets thrown at them constantly might be more sensitive to it than someone who hasn't. Being part of the abused underclass could change one's view on the rightness of a law or the application of a law. If you see how a law has been used to subvert people's basic rights in person, it is different than seeing the law from a detached view. For example, brown vs board (separate is inherently unequal) might be more obvious if you were part of the underclass. Perhaps if the supreme court was diverse, that decision would have been made earlier (or the original separate but equal decision never made).
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd agree with you there. But if you look back on pretty much any of my posts here, you may note that I continuously point out that the point is NOT to achieve a perfect demographic representation. Simply that if you have a choice between two reasonably identical candidates in terms of qualifications, it is appropriate to select the one that brings a quality to the supreme court that isn't there already. I also pointed out in an earlier post that while religion is important, it's ludicrous to complain about a lack of protestant when the board is overwhelming christian. (Although apparently there ARE some jews and perhaps a secret atheist or two).
Edit: that last part was intended to be a joke, not sure how well it reads over the interwebs)
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |