Posted on 10/11/2020 2:11:27 PM PDT by CondoleezzaProtege
It may have something to do with the value the two minority faiths place on higher education and the religions’ openness to intellectual inquiry, said John Fea, professor of American history at Messiah College.
“Unlike evangelicals who base their entire worldview on the teachings of the Bible, Catholics and Jews seem much more open to engaging in larger principles that will affect not only their own community, but the common good of the republic or of a nation beyond the needs of their particular religious tradition," Fea said.
For most of America’s history, the court was composed almost entirely of Protestants.
The first Catholic to win a seat on the court was Roger Taney in 1836 — nearly 50 years after the court was created. It would take another 58 years for the second Catholic to be elevated...
Justice Louis Brandeis, the first Jew on the Supreme Court. Photo courtesy of Library of Congress
It took 127 years for the first Jew to take a seat on the court. Louis Brandeis, the son of Jewish immigrants from what is now the Czech Republic, was elevated to the position in 1916. There was blatant anti-Semitism during confirmation hearings that lasted six months.
When Trump announced his selection, Kavanaugh talked about being “part of the vibrant Catholic community in the D.C. area … united by a commitment to serve.” He also gave a nod to schooling: “The motto of my Jesuit high school was ‘Men for others.’ I’ve tried to live that creed.”
Kavanaugh’s inclusion on the court would preserve the Catholic majority, with six justices reared and formed in that tradition. (Neil Gorsuch attends an Episcopal Church but grew up Catholic and attended the same Catholic high school as Kavanaugh.)
The remaining justices are Jewish.
(Excerpt) Read more at religionnews.com ...
There’s no Evangelicals on the Court simply because of pure religious bigotry by the Democrats.
Even as a Catholic I find it suspect that there aren’t more protestants on supreme court. There is a lot more of them when compared to Jews and Catholics.
1. Over the years there have been fewer and fewer Protestants who are even interested in pursuing a career in law.
2. Among those that do, the best ones invariably prefer more lucrative careers in private practice than as prosecutors and judges.
I don’t think there has been an Evangelical since Hugo Black left in 1971. If you look at the number of appointed judges since then versus percentage of population you could easily conclude discrimination..
>The first Catholic to win a seat on the court was Roger Taney in 1836 — nearly 50 years after the court was created. It would take another 58 years for the second Catholic to be elevated...
Surprised it wasn’t longer...
Are they including fake Catholics and Jews?
The number of Cafeteria Catholics and Atheistic Jews is legion. The number of Cafeteria and/or Atheistic Evangelicals are few.
Roger Taney was most famous for the Dred Scott decision and nearly nothing else.
PLEASE, if there was ever a case to use 'INFAMOUS', this is it!
Taney was a slaveholder, author of the 7-2 majority opinion of the 1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford Decision, pro-Confederacy, ANTI Lincoln and ANTI any continuation of the Civil War beyond a Southern victory. Oh, and he was a Democratic Ass as well. AND he was the *source* of Sen. Kamala Harris' "little lesson in history" at the VP Debate as it was his death 12 October 1864 that Lincoln waited to nominate Salmon P Chase as replacement in December.
Are Catholics and Jews just more numerous in the Legal Profession? I’m sure there are stats somewhere.
Jesus had quite a bit to say about those that sit in the seat of Moses... prophecy fulfilled... wear it with ‘pride’..
Amazing how the the socialist left who are always screaming about EQUALITY, like those of the French Revolution which preceded them, quiet as an oyster when it comes to the inequality on the Supreme Court? No non-Catholics or non-Jews allowed.
Do they not remember the mantra of the French revolutionaries: “Liberty, EQUALITY, Fraternity?”
Actually basing their entire worldview on the teachings of the Bible is a positive, and thus the reason why there are few evangelical judges is because one can hardly do so in good conscience today, and true Christians are usually the less educated, more humble types:
David therefore himself calleth him Lord; and whence is he then his son? And the common people heard him gladly. (Mark 12:37)
Then came the officers to the chief priests and Pharisees; and they said unto them, Why have ye not brought him? The officers answered, Never man spake like this man. Then answered them the Pharisees, Are ye also deceived? Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him? But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed. (John 7:45-49)
It was a case of "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." Taney saw the country being torn apart by the slavery issue and hoped to use the prestige of the Supreme Court to calm things down. Instead he damaged the prestige of the Supreme Court.
If the people who brought the lawsuit (many years earlier) had cared about the fate of Dred Scott and his wife, they could have bought them from their owner and set them free. If I remember correctly, at the time of the decision their actual owner was a Northerner, and they were given their freedom a year or so later.
Since the country has been altered dramatically by Leftist extremism over the last few decades, it has drifted further and further from Christianity and the Bible. It is natural that the composition of its highest court would reflect an anti-Protestant, anti-biblical bias. It’s not that complicated to understand.
Yup
And they say “religion is no test”
BS
And some of these “judges’ and ‘justices’ are hardly legal scholars, esp the Dim appointees
One can tell no matter the subject, their outcome ahead of time, they’re so damn politicized
The first Catholic to win a seat on the court was Roger Taney in 1836
You do not win a seat on the Supreme Court. The President of the United States nominates, and with the advice and consent (confirmation) of the United States Senate, appoints justices to the Supreme Court.
Wrong.
Its because evangelicals spend much of their time debating scripture instead of getting a real education.
In my 20’s I belonged to a very good evangelical church and nearly every one of them spent those critical years studying and debating scripture.
Nearly all of them are now poor, no retirement and no viable future.
There were about 5 of us who left and decided to go back to college.
One became a professor of music.
Another became an Architect.
One started his own business and was successful.
When I told them I was going to go back to college and study electronics, you would have thought I said “witchcraft”.
No one is going to appoint someone to a judgeship without decades of dedication to education and legal theory.
After over 30 years in electronics, I have valuable skills and knowledge I pass on to others along with using it to fund projects of my own.
One thing you can say about Jewish families.
They DON’T let their children waste those critical early years studying pointless education.
When a second was nominated, there was a single Catholic on the court, not more, not less, for virtually the entire time until 1986. Reagan started nominating Catholics, or once and future Catholics (Thomas) and for the most part the Bushes and Trump have followed suit.
It is a very interesting thing to think and speculate about.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.