Wednesday, 28 April 2010 12:14
With the impending retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens this summer from the Supreme Court, for the first time in its history, that court will be without a Protestant.
When Stevens leaves, the court will be composed of two Jewish and six Catholic justices. So far we haven’t really seen any protests or heard of any political action being planned if President Obama’s appointment is not a Protestant.
Currently serving as justices with Stevens are Samuel A. Alito Jr., Anthony M. Kennedy, John G. Roberts Jr., Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas, who were all appointed in the last 25 years by Republican presidents. Also Catholic is President Obama’s first pick to the high court, Sonia Sotomayor. Justices Steven G. Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg are Jewish.
Should religion be a factor to be considered in the next Supreme Court nominee?
President Obama has repeatedly emphasized that life experiences are valued traits for nominees. For instance, it was Sotomayor who initiated a conversation about the experiences that a “wise Latina” might bring to the bench. Would a qualified judicial candidate, who happens to be a Protestant, have a similar claim?
Some editorial pages opine that discussing the issue will lead to trouble because religion is private and people think it’s wrong to talk about it. Why?
Have we become so politically correct that we’ve given away the right to ask legitimate questions that may or may not have an impact on who becomes the next Supreme Court Justice?
If you’re a nominee to a position on the highest court in the United States, is it offensive to ask about religion and whether or not your personal beliefs will influence your decisions? We expect the answer to the second half of that question to be no, but it seems to offend many just by asking it.
Whoever is nominated and approved as the next Supreme Court Justice should be the person best qualified to serve.
We hope that religion will be a consideration, but certainly not the only one.
