Comments on: Has the Supreme Court Become Too Catholic

Has the Supreme Court Become Too Catholic

jefficator — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 17:23:27 -0800

Has the Supreme Court become too Catholic?

By: Balisong

Balisong — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 17:27:39 -0800

Yes?

By: Optimus Chyme

Optimus Chyme — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 17:28:10 -0800

Yes.

By: Sys Rq

Sys Rq — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 17:29:35 -0800

Has the College of Cardinals become too woodsy?

By: crickets

crickets — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 17:29:38 -0800

Yyyyeeessss.

By: jefficator

jefficator — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 17:29:54 -0800

By: EatTheWeak

EatTheWeak — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 17:30:32 -0800

SPOILER ALERT: Yes, it has.

By: axiom

axiom — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 17:32:43 -0800

This is the wrong question, IMHO. The right question is, "Is Catholicism unduly influencing the decisions of SCOTUS?" The snarky answer is probably "Yes" in the way that the Beatles unduly influence later musicians.

By: Optimus Chyme

Optimus Chyme — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 17:35:03 -0800

TOMORROW ON SLATE: HOW MANY KICKS TO YOUR GROIN IS TOO MANY.OUR INVESTIGATORS SAY SEVEN.

By: The World Famous

The World Famous — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 17:36:39 -0800

the most politically underrepresented "group" in American are atheists/agnostics. Definitely very underrepresented. But the "most" underrepresented? I doubt it.

By: CitrusFreak12

CitrusFreak12 — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 17:37:39 -0800

Wow, I hadn't even thought about the religions of any of the justices.

By: mr_roboto

mr_roboto — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 17:42:30 -0800

But the "most" underrepresented? I doubt it. Yeah, how about Jains? Or the Amish? Are Jehovah's Witnesses allowed to hold office, or even vote, according to their faith?

By: The Devil Tesla

The Devil Tesla — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 17:43:14 -0800

TOMORROW ON SLATE: HOW MANY KICKS TO YOUR GROIN IS TOO MANY.OUR INVESTIGATORS SAY SEVEN. THREE YEARS LATER ON SLATE: FIVE KICKS TO YOUR GROIN MAKES YOU A BETTER PARENT.

By: Pope Guilty

Pope Guilty — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 17:44:42 -0800

I know its bad form to comment on your own post, but I thought I would say this in light of statements about representation on the court: the most politically underrepresented "group" in American are atheists/agnostics. We're also the smallest of groups when it comes to religious/irreligious identity, aren't we?

By: DU

DU — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 17:45:14 -0800

Yeah, how about Jains? Or the Amish? Are Jehovah's Witnesses allowed to hold office, or even vote, according to their faith? Maybe not Jains, but Amish and JWs could easily make the same generic, blanket, pro-GodMerica statements that existing politicians do. But heaven help (heh) the politician who dares to say the Invisible Sky Giant is wearing no clothes.

By: Lemurrhea

Lemurrhea — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 17:48:27 -0800

What's the historical level of catholicism in the court? It may not have become too catholic. But it probably is. I found it interesting that O'Connor's statement about geographic diversity being important "surprised people". Up here in Canada, it's a convention (not a law or anything, but it's still followed) that the judges are: 3 from Quebec, 3 from Ontario, 2 from the West (1 B.C. 1 Prairie, I think), and 1 from out East. With the emphasis on State's rights down your way, why wouldn't that type of doctrine also evolve?

By: box

box — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 17:49:07 -0800

Yeah, there aren't any Jains in Congress, but I bet there aren't more than a couple million of 'em in the whole country. How many atheists/agnostics are there?

By: madajb

madajb — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 17:49:12 -0800

There's a whole of difference between Catholic and "Catholic". I know scores of people who, if asked, would say they're Catholic, but also quite happily vote for Planned Parenthood budgets, pro-abortion politicians, gays in the military and a bunch of other stuff that would get the Pope's dress in a twist. "Today religion is almost irrelevant in appointing new justices." As it should be. Along with sex, race, and anything else other than your legal record.

By: mr_roboto

mr_roboto — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 17:50:51 -0800

Maybe not Jains, but Amish and JWs could easily make the same generic, blanket, pro-GodMerica statements that existing politicians do. Eh, the JWs aren't very big on the whole "America" thing. Their allegiances are pretty strictly spiritual.

By: Navelgazer

Navelgazer — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 17:56:27 -0800

Has the Presidency become too Protestant?

By: hermitosis

hermitosis — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 17:58:23 -0800

But heaven help (heh) the politician who dares to say the Invisible Sky Giant is wearing no clothes. A good politician probably wouldn't come right out and say something so dismissive about other people's personal beliefs, which they presumably have for some good reason.

By: nowoutside

nowoutside — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 18:00:16 -0800

I'm from that Catholic stronghold of America, Northeast Ohio, where it is the default religion. When you get down to the level of people who consider themselves Catholics, they aren't this monolithic entity, spewing out whatever policy thoughts the Bishops came up with. A lot of it comes down to being a tradition you identify with, not this all consuming way of life. I don't know what the polling indicates, but in my experience most Catholics form their political predilections independent from the church. So, if all six of these Justices have a direct line to the Vatican and are meeting with a Cardinal consistently, I'd be concerned. However I'm not sure it is a reliable policy indicator otherwise.

By: oddman

oddman — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 18:01:37 -0800

Since Congress is mostly Protestant, and the Presidency almost exclusively so, belief in the balance of powers suggest that the Supreme Court should be comprised entirely of the Cult of Cthulhu. It's only fair.

By: kanewai

kanewai — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 18:03:34 -0800

Amish and JWs could easily make the same generic, blanket, pro-GodMerica statements that existing politicians do I'm not so sure the Amish could or would make those statements.

By: mdrosen

mdrosen — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 18:04:32 -0800

To the best of my knowledge, this is still a majority Protestant country. While I am not Protestant, I think that they should have major representation, if not proportional representation on the Supreme Court. However, the new born-again type of Evangelical Christians scare the hell out of me; why can't we get less scary "normal" Protestants elected to the court when openings occur: Lutherans, Episcopalians, etc.?

By: tkchrist

tkchrist — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 18:06:51 -0800

The problem is that Catholicism is too Catholic.

By: tkchrist

tkchrist — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 18:08:44 -0800

which they presumably have for some good reason Oh. They have reasons. But not sure I'd call them good reasons. I mean one doesn't have to look too hard to find much better and more compelling reasons for not holding such beliefs.

By: Pope Guilty

Pope Guilty — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 18:10:01 -0800

Yes, let's argue about atheism rather than discussing the impact of religious affiliation on the Supreme Court.

By: DU

DU — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 18:10:50 -0800

However, the new born-again type of Evangelical Christians scare the hell out of me; why can't we get less scary "normal" Protestants elected to the court when openings occur: Lutherans, Episcopalians, etc.? Ah Overton Window--is there no craziness you can't make seem moderate?

By: vorpal bunny

vorpal bunny — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 18:10:54 -0800

I wish I could look at the Metafilter archives from the 1960 presidential election when everyone would have been aghast at the thought that people wouldn't vote for Kennedy because he was a Catholic.

By: Navelgazer

Navelgazer — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 18:14:44 -0800

A perhaps more pertinent question might be whether Catholics and Jews are (1) more likely to go to the most elite law schools, ans (2) better represented among those classes in going into Judgeships as a career. I don't know the social factors involved in this, but in my experience this seems to be the case. It also seems to be the case that it doesn't really effect rulings.

By: tkchrist

tkchrist — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 18:17:42 -0800

Yes, let's argue about atheism rather than discussing the impact of religious affiliation on the Supreme Court. What if, huh. What if the Supreme Court had openly acknowledged Atheists. Never happen. And that tells all you need to know about the supposed tolerance people really have for divergent beliefs.

By: Navelgazer

Navelgazer — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 18:19:27 -0800

Oliver Wendell Holmes was an openly acknowledged, outspoken atheist. Also probably the greatest justice the court has ever known. Not to say whether or not it could happen today. Just a data point.

By: tkchrist

tkchrist — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 18:19:48 -0800

It also seems to be the case that it doesn't really effect rulings. What?

By: tkchrist

tkchrist — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 18:21:41 -0800

Oliver Wendell Holmes was an openly acknowledged, outspoken atheist. I never knew that. But it's won't happen today. And not for decades. Not with the politicized evangelical movement so prominent. Man. That is depressing that we have actually regressed in so short a time.

By: mr_crash_davis mark II: Jazz Odyssey

mr_crash_davis mark II: Jazz Odyssey — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 18:24:13 -0800

"the most unrepresented minority, the largest group of our fellow citizens never to have had one of its own sit on the U.S. Supreme Court in the modern era is—Evangelical Christians." Thank FSM.

By: Navelgazer

Navelgazer — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 18:27:33 -0800

It also seems to be the case that it doesn't really effect rulings. What? In spite of having the Pope as a singular religious leader, Catholics in America are far from monolithic, and disagree about a great many things. Also, they tend to represent a hugely disproportionate amount of judgeships at all levels, to the point where I'd posit that it isn't intentional so much as a intra-cultural push for those catholic kids going into the legal profession to become judges - something most lawyers know too well is a job they'd never want to do. Again, I don't know all the factors. I know that a goof number of the top law schools are Jesuit institutions. But in any case, Catholics sit across the aisle from each other on almost any legal issue you can consider, including things such as reproductive rights and marriage equality. So know, I don't think it effects the rulings, I just think it's a not-all-that-surprising statistical curiosity.

By: empath

empath — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 18:29:51 -0800

If I had a choice between "Catholic" and "Evangelical", I think I'd take Catholic.

By: oddman

oddman — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 18:29:52 -0800

tkchrist, quoting from the article. "Still, those who have attempted to argue that one's religion does inform a justice's constitutional thinking have encountered some rough sledding. How to answer, for instance, Scalia's argument that William Brennan—also a Catholic—was one of the staunchest defenders of reproductive rights?" In fact the slate article links to another article in which the author also concludes that the evidence does not suggest a simple relationship between religion and voting patterns.

By: afu

afu — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 18:33:47 -0800

There's a whole of difference between Catholic and "Catholic". Exactly, I don't have a problem with Catholics in general being on the supreme court. I do have a problem with Scalia being on the supreme court in part because he adheres to a specific conservative Catholicism that has dangerous political goals.

By: blue_beetle

blue_beetle — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 18:47:57 -0800

The Supreme Court is obviously too American, and therefore biased.

By: Justinian

Justinian — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 18:50:05 -0800

I'm uncomfortable with a lot of this thread. I'm pretty sure questions like "Has XXX become too Asian?" or "Has XXX become too Jewish?" would be met with rather harsh response. It's not as if Catholics in the USA haven't been a historically discriminated against group.

By: thivaia

thivaia — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 18:53:54 -0800

If I had a choice between "Catholic" and "Evangelical", I think I'd take Catholic. At least the architecture will be more attractive.

By: jock@law

jock@law — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 18:54:03 -0800

Oliver Wendell Holmes was ... probably the greatest justice the court has ever known. Ah yes, Oliver Wendell Holmes, liberal icon of the court, famous for such progressive pronouncements as "It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.... Three generations of imbeciles are enough." Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200, 207 (1927). Is the Court too Catholic? Absolutely not. For one thing, as the article points out, religion doesn't seem to determine case outcome. Scalia famously not only doesn't apply Catholic doctrine to death penalty cases, but openly disagrees with that doctrine. Conjointly, the correlation on the Court between current Catholics and current conservatives cannot be carried out to contemporary Catholics country-wide. Catholics conclusively cast their ballots for our current Commander-in-Chief.

By: UrineSoakedRube

UrineSoakedRube — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 18:55:18 -0800

Navelgazer> It also seems to be the case that it doesn't really effect rulings. tkchrist> What? I know: I can't believe he misspelled "affect", either.

By: theora55

theora55 — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 19:01:18 -0800

Has religion invaded too much of the American government? yes. The choice shouldn't be Catholic vs. Fundamentalist. It should be No Religious State vs. Absolutely No Religious State

By: Navelgazer

Navelgazer — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 19:06:40 -0800

I know: I can't believe he misspelled "affect", either. God-dammit!

By: Jahaza

Jahaza — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 19:10:40 -0800

I do have a problem with Scalia being on the supreme court in part because he adheres to a specific conservative Catholicism that has dangerous political goals. I think you don't know very much about Scalia's views on judging. Scalia has been pretty outspoken about the idea that his Catholic ideals about the right ordering of society do not influence his legal decisions. He holds, I understand, as many conservative (in both political and religious senses) Catholics do that it is his duty to uphold and execute the law as it is written by the legislature and in the Constitution. He has a higher duty to uphold divine law, but if these two ever conflict, the problem cannot be resolved by ruling in accordance with the divine law and against the Constitution/statues, but rather that he'd be obliged to resign his office. This is not a universally accepted view and he's taken some guff from the right for his anti-activist/originalist stance.

By: Postroad

Postroad — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 19:14:40 -0800

Muslim?

By: goodnewsfortheinsane

goodnewsfortheinsane — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 19:31:34 -0800

Today religion is almost irrelevant in appointing new justices. Ha. Hahahahahahaha Hahahahrrahhhahahhaha LOL LOL

By: edgeways

edgeways — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 19:38:31 -0800

SLOP

By: Sys Rq

Sys Rq — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 19:40:10 -0800

Today religion is almost irrelevant in appointing new justices. Ha. Hahahahahahaha Hahahahrrahhhahahhaha LOL LOL Hey, now, c'mon, it's true. Nowadays justices are chosen based on much more relevant criteria, like race and gender.

By: jock@law

jock@law — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 19:41:19 -0800

SLOP Hey c'mon. Like you could have called that bank shot.

By: MikeMc

MikeMc — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 19:45:39 -0800

Bloody Papists. I got nuthin'

By: kid ichorous

kid ichorous — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 19:47:46 -0800

I'm uncomfortable with a lot of this thread. I'm pretty sure questions like "Has XXX become too Asian?" Man, there's at least a hundred porn jokes in there. Not gonna touch any of them with a digitally-mosaiced pole. Shit.

By: Brian B.

Brian B. — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 19:48:19 -0800

Ah yes, Oliver Wendell Holmes, liberal icon of the court, famous for such progressive pronouncements as "It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.... Three generations of imbeciles are enough." Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200, 207 (1927). Three generations of imbeciles is barely enough to win some states.

By: IAmBroom

IAmBroom — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 19:50:08 -0800

I think you don't know very much about Scalia's views on judging. Scalia has been pretty outspoken about the idea that his Catholic ideals about the right ordering of society do not influence his legal decisions. He holds, I understand, as many conservative (in both political and religious senses) Catholics do that it is his duty to uphold and execute the law as it is written by the legislature and in the Constitution. He has a higher duty to uphold divine law, but if these two ever conflict, the problem cannot be resolved by ruling in accordance with the divine law and against the Constitution/statues, but rather that he'd be obliged to resign his office. This is not a universally accepted view and he's taken some guff from the right for his anti-activist/originalist stance. Jahaza, those are pretty admirable words from Justice Scalia. On the other hand, his actions seem pretty clearly in line with Catholic teachings. Hmm, pretty words vs. actual actions. Tough call.

By: oddman

oddman — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 20:02:05 -0800

He votes in-line with some Catholic teaching and against other Catholic teaching. Yeah, open and shut case right there. ITMFA (Impeach the . . . already)

By: Sys Rq

Sys Rq — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 20:04:52 -0800

Three generations of imbeciles are enough. Prescott counts, right? Please?

By: jock@law

jock@law — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 20:06:14 -0800

[Scalia's rulings] seem pretty clearly in line with Catholic teachings. Only in a meta-sense, in that there's a strong argument to be made that the Catholic doctrine of subsidiarity - which holds that governmental decisions should be made by the most-local competent authority - prohibits the Vatican from micromanaging individual countries' or judges' decisions. His opinions, however, only intermittently take a position that, if they were the law and when they are the law, would cause and do cause a legal result that codifies Catholic doctrine. If you think there's a pattern to suggest a meaningful correlation, I invite you to supply sources supporting your stated proposition.

By: erniepan

erniepan — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 20:07:46 -0800

No, if the Supreme Court were too Catholic, there would only be three justices. Or one. Or maybe one, three, and nine, all at the same time.

By: Riki tiki

Riki tiki — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 20:15:35 -0800

I'll admit to being weirded out when I realized that here in Northern Virginia, Justice Scalia's son is one of the priests at Justice Kennedy's parish. I mean, I know that's just the reality of the inside-the-beltway culture that things like that will happen... ...but then I think about the scandals involving pro-choice politicians being barred from communion and squick more than a little about the church's forays into using religious doctrine as a political tool.

By: briank

briank — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 20:27:42 -0800

Muslim? Seeeeeeeeeecrit Muslim = 1

By: Pope Guilty

Pope Guilty — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 20:28:11 -0800

Scalia is considered the Court's leading proponent of "originalism." This is a legal philosophy whereby the proponent attempts to locate the most dickish elements of the founding fathers' political views, magnify them, and disingenuously use them as a pretext for perpetuating dickish views. In other words, the phrase "I am an originalist," is synonymous with "I am a racist, but I'm too much of a pussy to just come out and say it because I went to college." It's the legal philsophy the audience on Jerry Springer would have if they went to Harvard or Yale law schools.

By: Riki tiki

Riki tiki — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 20:29:21 -0800

Aww. That's really a shitty addition to Wikipedia but I will be sorry to see it go.

By: Riki tiki

Riki tiki — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 20:29:53 -0800

Oh. Nevermind.

By: MikeMc

MikeMc — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 20:33:24 -0800

Seeeeeeeeeecrit Muslim = 1 Don't you mean seekrit muslin?

By: kid ichorous

kid ichorous — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 20:45:17 -0800

Just like human dicks, oil spent much of its early life not being a dick. It was simply content being a layer of sediment that was agreeable and pleasant to spend time with. All of that changed 100 million years later. Oh internet, how could you keep this away from me.

By: Baby_Balrog

Baby_Balrog — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 20:51:57 -0800

Sys Rq: Nowadays justices are chosen based on much more relevant criteria, like race and gender. ow jeez you got metal shavings in my eye watch it

By: Joe in Australia

Joe in Australia — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 21:17:49 -0800

There was a similar sort of article in the English newspaper The Independent which pointed out that two members of a panel were Jewish and that "Both Gilbert and Freedman are Jewish [...] it is a pity that, if and when the inquiry is accused of a whitewash, such handy ammunition will be available. Membership should not only be balanced; it should be seen to be balanced." That is, Jews (or Catholics) have their own agenda and we don't trust them.

By: Smedleyman

Smedleyman — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 21:22:10 -0800

People who disagree with me: Are there too many of them? "So, if all six of these Justices have a direct line to the Vatican and are meeting with a Cardinal consistently, I'd be concerned. However I'm not sure it is a reliable policy indicator otherwise." C'mon, all Catholics have direct lines to the Vatican. They have that secret Cat-phone in their medicine cabinets. Seriously, go look.

By: bjrubble

bjrubble — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 21:30:19 -0800

I think it's rich -- but typical of him -- that Scalia defends himself from the charge that he judges as a Catholic by pointing out his stance on the death penalty. Like the stereotypical position of an American Catholic is something other than a slavish devotion to papal decree on abortion, but lip service if not outright rejection of the particular tenets regarding war and the death penalty. He's a great -- and often hilarious -- writer, but I've yet to see any evidence that his "originalism" is founded in anything more than the happy coincidence that his political sentiments closely match the political state of the art of the late 18th century. Thomas, for all his reprehensible personal flaws, is actually a much more principled jurist (Gonzales v Raich being the obvious example).

By: Pope Guilty

Pope Guilty — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 21:39:15 -0800

Thomas? Clarence "napping during arguments" Thomas?

By: Ironmouth

Ironmouth — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 21:54:44 -0800

Weird. I've never met a judge whose religion affected any case I have been a part of.

By: Ironmouth

Ironmouth — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 21:57:16 -0800

I've yet to see any evidence that his "originalism" is founded in anything more than the happy coincidence that his political sentiments closely match the political state of the art of the late 18th century. Seriously, you can't take him seriously. A lawyer whose basis for decision is a belief that somehow he can "channel" the founding fathers. His book on persuading judges is pretty fucking good, but I suspect it has a lot more to do with his co-author.

By: Bizurke

Bizurke — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 22:15:34 -0800

My guess is that most of the "yes, duh" responses are coming from people who think the court is too conservative, not too Catholic. Do any of you hold Sotomayor's Catholicism against her?

By: Riki tiki

Riki tiki — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 22:25:30 -0800

Give us time and we just might, Bizurke. She's only been a Justice since August and I'm not aware of any decisions since then that might be significantly informed by Catholic doctrine. Correct me if I'm wrong.

By: chymes

chymes — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 22:39:58 -0800

"[Roberts] married Jane Sullivan in Washington in 1996.[3] She is an attorney, a Catholic, and a trustee (along with Clarence Thomas) at her alma mater, the College of the Holy Cross"

By: cirhosis

cirhosis — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 22:44:07 -0800

I believe that this is totally a non-issue and agree in pointing out that there is a huge difference between what most day to day Catholics believe and what the rather strange stereotype for Catholics suggests they believe. Full disclosure, I check off Catholic on my Census forms... which I fill out in Canada. But the last time I actually attended Mass was ... well I'm not sure. Catholic's make up close to half the population up here and the last time I checked this didn't keep us from legalizing Gay Marriage and Abortion and both standing up to constitutional challenges. Though I'll grant that we haven't had the death penalty since '76 and before that haven't executed anyone since '62. Off hand I couldn't tell you the religion of any of the members of the Supreme court of Canada, and I could only name a couple of them. Even with a little bit of research all I can say with any confidence that one of them is probably Jewish.

By: l33tpolicywonk

l33tpolicywonk — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 23:14:51 -0800

Scalia famously rejects church teaching on the death penalty:

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Monday criticized his church's position against the death penalty, saying that Catholic judges who believe capital punishment is wrong should resign ... In Chicago on Jan. 25, Scalia said, "In my view, the choice for the judge who believes the death penalty to be immoral is resignation rather than simply ignoring duly enacted constitutional laws and sabotaging the death penalty." His remarks were transcribed by the event sponsor, the Pew Forum ... Scalia said Monday that "any Catholic jurist (with such concerns) ... would have to resign."

To the extent that the Supreme Court remains willing to kill people, I would contend it is not Catholic enough.

By: Mister Moofoo

Mister Moofoo — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 23:58:52 -0800

Wow. I would have thought that the Catholic Church would support the death penalty. I'm completely surprised. I wonder why they oppose it?

By: Mister Moofoo

Mister Moofoo — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 00:00:19 -0800

I mean, I know the reasons why people oppose the death penalty. I just wonder what the Church's reasons, in particular, are.

By: Cranberry

Cranberry — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 00:10:30 -0800

I think the Catholic position is that life is sacred - womb to tomb. Thus, no abortion, no death penalty. In any parish, divergence of opinion could probably be found among the laity.

By: Pope Guilty

Pope Guilty — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 00:41:44 -0800

Combine that with the fact that the Catholic Church doesn't have the ability to murder people for disagreeing with the dogma anymore, and you end up with a variety of viewpoints.

By: Mister Moofoo

Mister Moofoo — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 01:01:36 -0800

...the ability to murder people for disagreeing with the dogma... See, that right there, that's why I figured they'd be all about the death penalty, continued relevance or not.

By: Justinian

Justinian — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 01:14:10 -0800

I'm not a big fan of organized religion of any sort, but don't you think that's a little unfair? It's not the 14th century any more.

By: Smedleyman

Smedleyman — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 02:09:25 -0800

Has the woods become too full of bear shit?

By: notsnot

notsnot — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 05:07:27 -0800

jock@law: " Conjointly, the correlation on the Court between current Catholics and current conservatives cannot be carried out to contemporary Catholics country-wide. Catholics conclusively cast their ballots for our current Commander-in-Chief." I see what you did there... (and yes, sometimes I read out loud.)

By: sciurus

sciurus — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 06:02:34 -0800

Holy shit, how did this phone end up in my medicine cabinet?

By: yerfatma

yerfatma — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 06:31:54 -0800

See, that right there, that's why I figured they'd be all about the death penalty, continued relevance or not. Well, now you're that much less ignorant today.

By: solmyjuice

solmyjuice — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 08:24:10 -0800

Is the pope catholic?

By: Jimmy Havok

Jimmy Havok — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 08:49:04 -0800

I would worry less about the six Catholics on the court, and more about the two members of Opus Dei. I would say that two religious fascists on our highest court are two too many, and balance be damned.

By: klangklangston

klangklangston — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 09:11:42 -0800

Has the Supreme Court become too conservative? (Yes.)

By: l33tpolicywonk

l33tpolicywonk — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 09:18:37 -0800

Mister Moofoo: I mean, I know the reasons why people oppose the death penalty. I just wonder what the Church's reasons, in particular, are. Cranberry summed it up fairly well. The Catholic Church has for some time argued that the death penalty can only be justified where a country's justice system isn't stable enough to protect public safety otherwise (e.g. if you arrest a serial killer and you don't have a stable prison system). Despite the fact that this is patently not the case throughout the US, Canada and Western Europe (and the respective bishops of these countries have said as much), Catholics like Scalia have used this exception to argue its in the special category of church teachings they can call wrong, while still insisting that other Catholics follow all the church teachings they support. It drives me bonkers, but there it is. I've said this before on MeFi, but its worth pointing out again and every time I can: the Catholic Church is a huge tent, and included in it is a group of people who take "womb-to-tomb" to mean no abortion, capital punishment, war, torture or economic / social subjugation. While we're a minority, if you define a church by the people in it and not just the people who run it, we're here and we're Catholic too.

By: The World Famous

The World Famous — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 09:27:49 -0800

People throw the word "fascist" around so carelessly on MetaFilter that sometimes I get confused and think it's an episode of The Young Ones.

By: Sys Rq

Sys Rq — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 09:39:04 -0800

People throw the word "fascist" around so carelessly on MetaFilter that sometimes I get confused and think it's an episode of The Young Ones. I feel that way about Fox News.

By: The World Famous

The World Famous — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 09:45:21 -0800

People throw the word "fascist" around so carelessly on MetaFilter that sometimes I get confused and think it's an episode of The Young Ones. I feel that way about Fox News. I would watch Fox News if Vyvyan, Neil, Mike, and Rick were in charge.

By: jason's_planet

jason's_planet — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 10:03:00 -0800

Has the Supreme Court become too Catholic? The 1830s are over. Outside of a goofball fundie fringe, nobody cares about Catholicism vs. Protestantism anymore. In the twenty-first century, race and partisan identity trump Christian denomination. When Clarence Thomas was put forward as a candidate, how much attention did people pay to his Catholicism?

By: Jimmy Havok

Jimmy Havok — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 12:19:19 -0800

People throw the word "fascist" around so carelessly Yeah...using to describe a cult started by a Spanish fascist! How sloppy!

By: The World Famous

The World Famous — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 12:22:59 -0800

Yeah...using to describe a cult started by a Spanish fascist! How sloppy! Actually, above it was used not to describe the cult, but to describe two unnamed and unidentified Supreme Court justices.

By: Jimmy Havok

Jimmy Havok — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 12:29:54 -0800

...two unnamed and unidentified Supreme Court justices... ...who belong to a cult started by a Spanish fascist, which takes complete control of the lives of its members. See how that works?

By: The World Famous

The World Famous — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 12:45:33 -0800

...two unnamed and unidentified Supreme Court justices... ...who belong to a cult started by a Spanish fascist, which takes complete control of the lives of its members. See how that works? Which says nothing about whether or not the justices in question are fascists. Seriously, you're sounding more and more like Vyvyan. (Of course, they also belong to a cult started by a Middle Eastern deity who was a Jew. Does that mean that they, too, are Jewish deities?)

By: Pope Guilty

Pope Guilty — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 12:47:17 -0800

That's some specious reasoning, TWF, if you think "Jew" and "deity" are the same kinds of characteristic as "fascist".

By: The World Famous

The World Famous — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 12:57:09 -0800

That's some specious reasoning, TWF, if you think "Jew" and "deity" are the same kinds of characteristic as "fascist". That is a very good point. Let me revise it somewhat. They belong to a cult started by a renowned pacifist. Does that mean that they, too, are pacifists? Pope Guilty, are you subscribing to the theory that two unidentified Supreme Court justices are fascists based solely on the allegation that they allegedly belong to Opus Dei, which was founded by a fascist in 1928? Can I fairly attribute to you all political beliefs held by the founders of each and every organization to which you belong? Have you or Jimmy Havok done some sort of analysis of the jurisprudence of these unidentified justices that would support the theory that they share the political beliefs of Josemaria Escriva, or are the fact that he founded Opus Dei and the allegation that they are members thereof enough to conclude that they, like Thatcher, are fascists?

By: Sys Rq

Sys Rq — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 12:58:12 -0800

(Of course, they also belong to a cult started by a Middle Eastern deity who was a Jew. Does that mean that they, too, are Jewish deities?) Whoa, whoa, whoa. Demi-deity. And the cult was started by his buddies, not him.

By: The World Famous

The World Famous — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 13:00:32 -0800

Good point. The Supreme Court justices are, therefore, buddies of a demi-deity.

By: Sys Rq

Sys Rq — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 13:02:38 -0800

Some of the buddies were whores, so there's also that.

By: Pope Guilty

Pope Guilty — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 13:29:45 -0800

TWF, I am not a member of any organization that was founded for the furtherance of moral or philosophical principles; I would not join any such organization if I had issues with that. (Also Jesus was manifestly not a pacifist; he talked a good game, but when his buttons were pushed, he flipped out like any mammal.)

By: heathkit

heathkit — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 14:00:20 -0800

Yes!

By: Jimmy Havok

Jimmy Havok — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 17:46:56 -0800

Thanks for clearing that up, World Famous. No need to worry that two members of the Supreme Court are members of a cult started by a fascist that takes complete control of its members' lives, since they might not actually be fascist after all, despite all their various rulings in favor of authoritarian state power, and the contempt they have displayed for civil rights in their opinions. I feel much better about the whole thing now.

By: afu

afu — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 20:43:12 -0800

I think you don't know very much about Scalia's views on judging. Scalia has been pretty outspoken about the idea that his Catholic ideals about the right ordering of society do not influence his legal decisions. He holds, I understand, as many conservative (in both political and religious senses) Catholics do that it is his duty to uphold and execute the law as it is written by the legislature and in the Constitution. It's admirable that he takes that stance, but it is naive to believe that anyone can some how put up a firewall between their political ideas and legal ideas. This is especially true in a case like the supreme court where the legal issues are uncertain and personnel judgement plays such an important role.

By: minimii

minimii — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 03:54:25 -0800

Also, note that Buchanan, the good christian politician that he is, is lying when he says that no evangelical christian has ever been on the Court. The officiant of Rush Limbaugh's third marriage, Clarence "Coke Zero" Thomas, was a fundie evangelical associated with the "charismatic Truro Episcopalian church while he was on the bench and only recently began describing himself as a catholic.

By: l33tpolicywonk

l33tpolicywonk — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 08:43:46 -0800

Pope Guilty: (Also Jesus was manifestly not a pacifist; he talked a good game, but when his buttons were pushed, he flipped out like any mammal.) I would think "they who live by the sword die by the sword" proves that Jesus manifestly was a pacifist, but tell me where I'm wrong.

By: Pope Guilty

Pope Guilty — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 08:46:12 -0800

Are you under the impression that "casting the moneychangers out of the temple" involves asking them politely to leave?

By: epsilon

epsilon — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 18:59:32 -0800

I wonder whether this discussion is really about whether the Court has become too Catholic, which is one issue, or whether it has failed to become a bastion of moral relativism. Either of these issues are interesting but are not the same. If the issue is actually Catholicism, American Catholics are a diverse bunch when it comes to political and legal opinions. As others have noted, Brennan and Scalia are both Catholics but certainly not ideological allies. As to what Catholics may bring to the bench as far as beliefs, they are no more or less exciting than the beliefs other religious people may bring, but are certainly part of a more robust and well known body of theology than might present in the cases of other religions. Ultimately each Catholic, Protestant, Jew, or any other must make their own choice, and the Catholics on the Court do just that and always have. If, as I suspect, the objection is to moral absolutism rather than Catholicism, there is something more interesting to discuss. Should justices have moral absolutes? If they do, then they will rule in those ways, whereas if not, law will become unpredictable as shifting opinions will lead to different rulings. Personally, I favor dealing with a court of competing absolutes in so far as it favors consistency over time. I would prefer that these absolutes be economically based, but absolutes are easier to deal with when trying to determine what the law is.

By: Pope Guilty

Pope Guilty — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 20:14:20 -0800

I love how religious people use "moral absolutism" and "moral relativism" to mean "agrees with my moral values" and "disagrees with my moral values".

By: notsnot

notsnot — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 20:25:46 -0800

Upon further reckoning, I think I know why there's so many Catholics on the Court. Many of the nation's top bread-and-butter law schools are Catholic. Duh. Well, closer inspection reveals they're actually run by the Jesuits. Having gone to a Jesuit high school. I can say with some certainty why so many law schools are run by Jesuits: them Jesuits sure do like to fuckin' argue. The make Metafilter look like a god-damned mutual admiration society.

By: Brian B.

Brian B. — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 20:33:56 -0800

Upon further reckoning, I think I know why there's so many Catholics on the Court. Many of the nation's top bread-and-butter law schools are Catholic. Duh. Well, closer inspection reveals they're actually run by the Jesuits. It is more due to the abortion debate that forces fearful politicians to select Catholics so that committees will rubber stamp them with few surprises. If the hot button issue of the day was prohibition, then there would be six Mormons on the court, two of them drinkers.

By: epsilon

epsilon — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 11:33:24 -0800

I love how religious people use "moral absolutism" and "moral relativism" to mean "agrees with my moral values" and "disagrees with my moral values". I don't mean this in the sense that one is an absolutist if they agree with me and a relativist if they don't. People can believe in competing absolute notions and that is a legitimate grounds for discussion. For instance Scalia thinks it is an absolute right of the state to execute people and I hold it is absolutely not right, but that does not mean I think Scalia is a relativist.

By: Pope Guilty

Pope Guilty — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 11:45:34 -0800

Nobody hates Scalia for being a relativist, epsilon. People hate Scalia for being completely morally and intellectually bankrupt and for apparently taking pleasure in the misery of others.

By: jock@law

jock@law — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 09:18:46 -0800

[T]wo members of the Supreme Court are members of a cult started by a fascist [and have a multitude of] various rulings in favor of authoritarian state power, and [have shown] contempt ... for civil rights in their opinions. I'm assuming that Scalia is one of the alleged Opus Dei members? Because the view that Scalia's jurisprudence is in favor of "authoritarian state power" is ignorant and unnuanced. See, e.g., Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004) (Scalia, J. dissenting, joined by Stevens, J., arguing that holding Hamdi as an enemy combatant was unconstitutional, full stop, unless and until Congress were to suspend the writ of habeas corpus); United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (holding that federal sentencing factors must be subject to a jury finding beyond a reasonable doubt); District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008) (striking down and holding unconstitutional Federal limits on individual ownership of firearms). He's certainly not a progressive, and you shouldn't read into this an endorsement of his particular brand of biased jurisprudence, but to say that he rules in favor of authoritarian state power and suggest that he's a fascist is... to put it lightly... grossly inaccurate.

By: Jimmy Havok

Jimmy Havok — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 14:28:18 -0800

O, hurray! Scalia ruled against giving up some of his own personal power!

By: Navelgazer

Navelgazer — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 18:59:41 -0800

Jimmy Havok, I'm no fan of Scalia's either, but he's one of those weird "villanous" justices where there's something for everyone to like. For me, it's that he's hardline on tough judicial standards in order to convict criminals. Even Scalia is far from black and white.

By: Jimmy Havok

Jimmy Havok — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 20:17:56 -0800

No one is perfect, not even perfectly evil. But Scalia does a damned good job of getting close. Thomas's laziness and what-he-said attitude is slightly leavened by his porn-hound's devotion to the 1st Amendment. But Scalia doesn't even have that. Were he a scientist or a philosopher, his detached attitude toward the limits of knowledge would be bearable. But he has the power of life and death, and throwing up your hands and going "Well, who can know?" when it means someone who very well could be innocent will be executed is as close to real evil as I can imagine.