And then there were none (Protestants on the Supreme Court)

Well, the evangelicals seem to be doing better with Congress, so maybe it is just a checks/n/balances thingy.

I don't think the number of Catholics on the Court is an accident. The male (practicing) Catholics I know seem to march in lockstep opposition to abortion. Appointing a Protestant should not be necessary, however, as religion is not supposed to trump respect for legal precedents, our Constitution, and rational arguments. If religion were really important, I'd rather have a Buddhist any day, than just about anybody from the Christian, Jewish, or Muslim ranks. We definitely need another woman on the Court, however, to ensure better representation of a group that, after all, makes up the majority of our population.

Imagine how the many millions of agnostics and atheists feel with effectively no representation in any branch.

Obama should appoint an atheist. It's time for some rational thinking on the nation's highest court.

What's this about Catholics?

AP EXCLUSIVE: Letter shows future Pope Benedict resisted defrocking molester priest

GILLIAN FLACCUS
AP News

Apr 09, 2010 13:44 EDT

The future Pope Benedict XVI resisted pleas to defrock a California priest with a record of sexually molesting children, citing concerns including "the good of the universal church," according to a 1985 letter bearing his signature.

Agree with the other commenters... he should appoint an atheist.

ha, the provost said that the current judges don't you religion in their views... Doesn't he read Scalia, Roberts or Alito? They're more loyal to the Pope than to the Constitution!

It is a matter of considerable concern to me and my family that there is no protestant on the Supreme Court. 51% of Americans are protestant--that's a majority by any standard--and strangely, not a single justice appointed to represent the majority. The news media love to talk of when American will be primarily made of minorities. They want it so desperately, that they write it as if it has already happened. But in reality America is NOT primarily minorities, nor is it primarily Catholic, and there should be a white protestant appointed and stop this chatter of political correctness. Its time some people stopped demanding gimme, gimme, gimme. Its a matter of fairness.

Yes, if we really want to push the boundaries and be inclusive an atheist would fit the bill.

What he should do is appoint a member of the one true religion - atheism.
Is America tolerant enough for that?

BTW 15% of Americans have no religion

The Constitution has two clauses concerning religion - one is the establishment clause (no law shall be made establishing a religion) and the other is the "litmus" test clause stating that in order to hold office there is no requirement to be of a specific religion. That being said, religion or lack of it should not dictate a pick on the Supreme court. Since when do I require representation on the Supreme Court. I believe that the candidate should be a constitutional scholar with some judicial experience deciding constitutional issues. I would welcome a moral Muslim over an immoral Protestant if they were both equally qualified.
The President should nominate someone who has the interests of the country above the "baggage" they bring to the table. It is up to the Senate to properly examine and ensure that this is the case.

There are several justices that claim to be Catholic and are not.

If they were, they would overturn Roe vs. Wade. Every person, Catholic or not, knows the Catholic church is pro-life/anti-abortion.

An atheist won't be nominated for several reasons- mostly because they'd have to be confirmed by people who would have to answer for it in their next election, but also because prominent atheists are perceived as having a chip on their shoulder, that will lead to an incorrect conclusion that they are too biased.

To answer Pat Buchanan, a lot of Evangelical Christians aren't very comfortable with the whole separation-of-church-and-state part of the Constitution. In fact many will deny there is such a separation intended by the Founders, and even if there was, God doesn't want it anyway. Anyway, this is perhaps one reason why there haven't been Evangelical nominees.

Another reason might be that a lot of Evangelical Christians believe in the literal truth of the Bible, that Biblical reality supersedes physical reality and Biblical law (as it is interpreted by their local megachurch pastor) overrules the law of man.

A lot of Evangelical Christians also believe that they literally converse with o God each morning morning and that He tells them literally what to do each day. That may not be the best thing for a deliberative body -- it certainly has not proven to be a great thing for Presidents.

Catholics can be as conservative as anybody but at least there is a long tradition of Catholic respect for logic and reason (and, to some extent, science).

If the people Pat Buchanan is talking about -- the Sarah Palin/Glenn Beck types -- start to receive their "fair" representation on the Supreme court, that is basically the end of the United States Constitution as we've known it in our lifetimes.

Religion should absolutely not be a consideration for the nomination of the next Supreme Court justice. The separation of church and state applies there, too.

If our goal is to find members of the court who represent particular segments of the nation, then the president should be looking for a black, atheist, lesbian. She would cover several constituencies. So far Roman Catholic justices have not been a problem. I sometimes question some of the decisions of Justices Scalia and Thomas, but while I think they may find constitutional arguments that align with their religion, the arguments are still within constitutional bounds. It's too early to tell about Roberts and Alito. Justice Sotomayor's history on the lower court doesn't suggest that she has a problem separating her faith from the requirements of the constitution and Kennedy is a good sound thinker, although I find myself disagreeing with him at times.

The trouble with trying to include all possible groups is the limit of nine. We would need to significantly increase the size of the court to shoe horn in all possibilities and then we would wind up with no decisions at all.

That said. I agree with the posters who support a non Roman Catholic woman on the court.

Religion should be a non-issue with Supreme Court appointments.

It is the glory of America that I have little idea what religion is professed by my neighbors, and nor do I care. Keep this topic off the Supreme Court checklist.

It will be good to have same type of person as Stevens is, white, male, progressive and protestent who is extremely qualified and shows more leadership than Stevens to confront extremists like Scalia, Thomas and Alito.

On what topics are the views of Protestants not effectively represented through the Catholics on the court? Papal infallability is not really a question for the Supreme Court. Can present a scenario where Justice Stevens would better represent Protestant or evangelical viewpoints better than the more conservative Catholics on the court.

I would prefer a Deist, although I am not terribly concerned about the religion of the next SCJ. I am much more concerned about their body of work and whether they blindly follow some flawed or antiquated ideology that has no applicability to 21st century America.

So how about an atheist or agnostic? Or is that still out of the question entirely?

We don't need "another" woman. we need 5 women on the Court to offer some meaninful balance to a bunch of never been in the real world males.
Don't much care about religion, except most of the current Catholics on the Court are kind of like the church hierarchy, pompous and arrogant (or do I mean uppity?).

Please, please, let's not go where this article wants us to go; besides the Constitutionality of asking what religion you are prior to confirmation, we already have enough "litmus tests" for incoming Supremes (abortion, activism, etc) do we really need or want to add another?

This political correctness stuff drives me nuts! The best person for the job should be nominated REGARDLESS of their race, religion, gender, etc. That is one of the things that bothered me about Sotomayor's nomination and confirmation. I think it is disrespectful to focus on the fact that she is a woman. While I disagree with some of her politics, I can recognize that she is a smart and experienced person. Nominating her because we needed another woman on the court is just plain disgusting.

There is a reason for this bias on the Supreme Court for Catholics and Jews. The Rothschilds, leaders of the Banking Cartel Families that own the FED, took control of the finances of the Catholic Church worldwide in 1823, "managing Church property and donations" to "maximize" profits for Church supposedly. So, everytime a Catholic gives a contribution or a property or a legacy to the Church, it ends up in a Rothschild Bank, probably in Switzerland, at their Bank of International Settlements.

In the world Banking Cartel's "New World Order" they seek to influence and control all the sources of information that affect human beings and mold their opinions. So, it is to their benefit to have Catholic Judges, for.....through their control of the Pope.....the can get the decisions they want from the Court. Jews are another group they can influence, as most families belonging to the Cartel are Jewish. So, placing Jewish people on the bench, again enhances their influence.

Protestants are diverse and varied and one of the basic tenents of the Protestant religion is that making money from money is a sin. So, Protestants since 800 A.D. have been strongly urged never to lend out money for interest. That is the origin of the Usury laws in America, which the Cartel have had annulled by crooked Senators and Congressmen, they own.

If the Supreme Court is to give all the power in the nation to the Corporations, which the Cartel owns and runs, there must be few or no Protestants in the make up of the Supreme Court.

see : http://www.save-a-patriot.org/files/view/whofed.html

for the results of a House Investigation into the FED and Banking in America.
-o-
see the film and the FAQ's at : themoneymasters.com
-o-
see : Money As Debt at : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVkFb26u9g8

to learn how the Cartel, through the FED,
cheat us daily out of Billions of Dollars of Wealth by using "fractional reserve lending" in the creation of their valueless "federal reserve notes."
-o-
see : Arron Russo's film "America : Freedom to Fascism"
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173&hl=en

to learn of their ultimate plans for individual, normal Americans in the very close future. Hint : When they come to plant the microchip in your arm, fight to your death to prevent it. If you don't, to the Cartel, you will then be like a cow with a tag stapled in its ear. It's called Slavery by Debt and THEY will be your Owners.

In my previous post I recommended going to : themoneymasters.com However, I find that Google has now defined the site as "dangerous" for malware and viruses and won't take you there. Obviously, the Banking Cartel is beginning to worry about their activities becoming so public.....as well they should.

Therefore when you wish to visit this site, use "Bing.com" as your search engine.
It gets you there instantly. I visited, and no malware attacked my computer

Cheers, from France, Victor Compton

Who does the Washington Post cosider to be this country's pre-eminent legal scholars, irrespective of ideology?

Who does the Washington Post consider to be this country's most distinguished philosophers in the field of ethics?

I would like to compare whom we eventually end up with with whom we could have had.

It would definitely be fair to ask the question of a Supreme Court nominee, "why are there no Protestants on the court?"

I do find it profoundly sad that the one demographic group with the most demonstrably lacking knowledge of female sexuality -- namely Catholic priests, who obviously know absolutely nothing about human sexuality -- is the same demographic group that gets to unilaterally dictate public policy on reproductive rights.

Sort of like asking Jabba the Hut to emcee a beauty pageant.

I have considered every one of the above-mentioned comments and make my own as follows:-

Firstly, Roman Catholicism is not true Christianity. It is a pseudo-Christian cult like Mormonism, Armstrongism, The Watchtower Society and Seventh Day Adventism. True Christianity states that salvation is based solely on faith through God's grace not works. Further, the Bible is the sole authority as to the Word of God rather than Church traditions, other books and personal experiences. Christian Fundamentalism is unfortunately portrayed by the media as being the province of illiterate red-necks. True Fundamentalism represents five basic beliefs of faith namely the Virgin Birth of Jesus, His Deity, His death for the sins of mankind, His resurrection and His Second Advent. It is not a requirement that one needs any faith or religion in order to make make rational legal decisions. Judgments should be based on legal argument and not be swayed by one's personal beliefs.

THE WORLD IS FLAT ACCORDING TO THE SUPREME COURT.

We need a Supreme Court Justice who should know that STUPID BELIEFS HAVE NO RIGHTS.

Imagine a law that is based on the assumption that the earth is flat. We know that it won't pass in this modern time of people who know that the world is a sphere but it would pass at a time centuries ago when many people think that the earth could be flat.

It's a STUPID BELIEF that there is no God. God can be proven scientifically for how can we explain the existence of all brains in all fishes, insects and all the thousands , if not millions, types of animals if there is no higher intelligence. Don't tell me that a brainless earth can produce it by shear luck.

There are many petitions in courts that have been forwarded by ATHEISTS based on atheistic doctrines. All of them should not be heard for the simple reason that STUPID BELIEFS HAVE NO RIGHTS unless we level ourselves to the same crowd that still believes that the world could be flat.

What about a Muslim?

CMNC ~ be just our luck to get a Zen Buddhist like those who taught at Portland’s Obukan judo dojo in the 1930s.

They were into judo and kendo for the purpose of contemplation ~ not for winning.

This branch of Zen didn't have all that many adherents, but it's still around. Some of the members of the dojo attend prayers with Steve Jobs.

Small world eh?

POSTED BY: TBOYER33 - your view of Protestantism is sorely lacking in every respect ~ logic, facts, reality, theology, etc.

I'd pick an Atheist. There has never been one on the Supreme Court. High time.

Anyone who was really, truly an atheist would already have committed suicide, so no, they would not be a good candidate.

Why worry about religious affiliation. If an appointee can ignore their religious dogma then integrity and competence should be the hall marks.

Should agnostics, Moslems and Buddhists are be represented? What about poor people?

The moment religion is a criteria then the President is intimidated by crass politics.

It is my hope that First Lady Michelle Obama is considered as a candidate for the Supreme Court. She is intelligent, well educated, has shown empathy and compassion for those in misery who have been suffering and struggling; and she supports America’s future as demonstrated in environmental protection and the continued need for cleanup, and resource conservation for future generations. She supports equality, justice, and fairness; and she understands and accepts the need for American citizens to be able to adjust, or change, to successfully live and find joy, comfort, and happiness; and the need to feel a sense of self-worth as a contributor, and as a good and producing member of society.

If not this fine lady then I hope someone with the same good character.

Well it was never written that the Supreme Court had to be represented on the bench by all Religions as even Jesus didn't have anything to do with Govenments. Now it seems the Religious Groups no longer work for God buy the Govenments and Satan. Churches have become businesses and Priest are greedy for money and life style. It will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court Justices deal with the Churches child molestation.

Message to Pat Buchanan: I don't think that the evangelical christian graduates of Pat Robertson's Regents "Law School" would have the intellectual weight to pass the ABA's standards. Do we really want people who believe that every word in the Bible is the literal truth sitting on the Supreme Court?

If 51% of Americans identify themselves as Protestant, surely they should be represented. If as expected Ruth Bader Ginsburg is going to retire, I would suggest that both the current vacancy and her vacancy be filled by Protestants.

By Protestant I mean mainline, not an evangelical, holy roller, snake handler, kerosene drinker or member of some unaffiliated McChurch or follower of Pa$tor Rick. Ken Starr is back in DC and available-horrible thought.

Also, Mormons should be excluded as they are not even Christian (though they have been claiming they are for the last 3 years), so are not Protestant.

To VCCompton1: I really wish the WAPO would delete comments from the clearly whacko. Protestantism didn't even exist in 800 AD. Moreover, Protestants have no problem whatsover in making money and, indeed, saw wealth as a sign that they were among the elect.

Grevillea

You wrote, " Further, the Bible is the sole authority as to the Word of God rather than Church traditions, other books and personal experiences."

What about God being the SOLE AUTHORITY?

Didn't Jesus, in the bible, say, "Come follow Me"? He did not say follow the bible, follow those that say they are following me but to follow Him, did He not?

As far as "personal experiences" did not Jesus say, "I will send the Holy Spirit to guide you..."? Sounds rather personal to me, does it not to you?

The bible is a book and in that book it clearly says that Jesus is the Word of God, "And the Word of God became Flesh", does it not? The bible did not become flesh, did it?

You then wrote, "True Fundamentalism represents five basic beliefs of faith namely the Virgin Birth of Jesus, His Deity, His death for the sins of mankind, His resurrection and His Second Advent."

You mentioned, "His death for the sins of mankind"?

Do you really believe that or do you believe that it is for "some" of the "sins of mankind"?

By the way, the Word is LOVE, it is that simple and the GOOD NEWS is just that GOOD NEWS FOR ALL, not just 'good enough news for some'.

You also mentioned, "True Christianity states that salvation is based solely on faith through God's grace not works."

Actually no it doesn't, it is not based on "faith through God's grace" but on God's grace.

It also says in the bible that "Faith without works is dead", does it not?

Also in the bible, Faith, Hope and Love are mentioned and doesn't it say something to the effect that Faith will go, Hope will go and what remains is Love?

As I have said many times: God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religioous affiliations or lack thereof.

God will not fit into any of the boxes that we, humans, attempt to cram God into, God is not the loser, as in partial winner, that some believe and/or want God to be.

God Is God, the bible is not God.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

A book that is on my radar, which possibly informs on this topic, is "Who are We: The Challenges to America's National Identity" by Samuel P. Huntington. It appears that one of the premises is to suggest that a return to Anglo-Protestantism in the U.S., is recommended to restore the desired/representative cultural identity that shaped the United States. Maybe there is something to this.

John Paul Stevens is known to be the MOST liberal judge on the high court--and Protestant. Typically those who are deemed as religious tend to be more on the conservative side of things. So just as there are Catholics, Jews, Buddhists, etc. in name only there are also Protestants just the same. It's a title for some, not a lifestyle or worldview. So whether the next judge is Protestant or not is irrelevant to a degree. It will depend on their lifestyle and convictions and adherence to their faith despite their affiliation. As a Catholic I don't care of what stripe the next appointee is so long as they are not a Constitutional ideologue like Obama. Personally, I don't think Obama can stomach another contentious fight and he'll swing toward the middle to try and appease both sides of the aisle. A hyper-liberal won't get very far in my opinion.