Posted on 10/30/2005 6:54:34 PM PST by gobucks
Sometime in the early 1940s, my father returned from a business trip and announced to his family: “Shake the hand that shook the hand of Justice Frank Murphy.” During that same trip, he stopped in Kansas City, Mo., and was introduced to Harry Truman, who had been a senator from that state since 1934. But my father had barely heard of him. It was Murphy, the only Catholic on the Supreme Court, that caught his baptized eye.
It was a period in Catholic thinking during which we celebrated Catholic all-American ping-pong teams. Besides, Murphy, a former mayor of Detroit, governor of Michigan and U.S. attorney general, was only the fifth Catholic to serve on the court since it was established in 1789, a period of 151 years. The Jews had to wait 127 years until Louis D. Brandeis, the first Jewish justice, was appointed by Woodrow Wilson in 1916. Compare that to the 32 Episcopalian behinds that have warmed the bench since George Washington appointed John Jay (Episcopalian) in 1789.
Now comes George W. Bush, who sees at least one vacancy on the court (maybe two) at the end of the present term. Seven of the nine justices have been appointed by Republican presidents, but the president is uncomfortable with any Dem-ocrats hanging around. It is likely that William Rehnquist, Lutheran and chief justice, who is almost 79, will leave the court after 31 years. Further, Sandra Day O’Connor (Episcopalian), who will be 73 in 2003, is making sounds that she may return to her California home.
The oldest justice is John Paul Stevens, an 82-year-old Protestant with a Catholic wife. However, he has given little indication that he’s ready to hang up his gavel. Further, with an average age of nearly 69, these nine justices could almost compete with the College of Cardinals. The aging court could use a bladder control prayer group. Any one of them could make the Last Judgment at any time.
According to The New York Times, President Bush has staffers making lists of potential candidates in order to meet the late spring deadline and to mount a strong defense of his choices who will likely be even more conservative than he is.
At the moment, the front-runner for the first vacancy is Alberto R. Gonzales, a White House counselor and former legal adviser to Bush when he was governor of Texas. Reports suggest that Harvard Law School graduate Gonzales, who came from a poor Texas family, has the requisite loyalty and philosophical conservatism that Bush craves. More important, if nominated and approved, he would be the first Hispanic to serve.
President Bush needs Hispanic votes. The nation now has over 35,300,000 Latinos -- most of them with roots in Mexico. His brother, Jeb, governor of Florida, is married to a Latina-American and has converted to Catholicism. Jeb helped to deliver Florida’s electoral votes, the ones that put George in office, even though he lost the general election. Allegedly, Gonzales wants the post. Even now, his staff suggests that he likes to be addressed as “Judge Gonzales.” He is conservative, antiabortion -- and Catholic.
Two other possible candidates are Samuel Alito, judge of the appeals court in Newark, N.J. However, Alito is Italian-American as is Justice Antonin Scalia. Alito once clerked for Scalia and earned the nickname “Scalito.” Then, there is Miguel Estrada, perhaps a more reliable conservative than Gonzales. The hard-nosed conservatives don’t amount to that big a political block, however.
It’s just that they’re louder and Bush is fearful of them. In any case, all three potential justices are Roman Catholics.
That suggests there may be four, maybe five Catholics on the court by next spring -- an extraordinary shift. The new justice -- or two -- would join Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.
There hasn’t been a Catholic chief justice in 82 years. Bush might prefer Scalia but the opinionated justice would have a hard time even with the new Republican Congress. He’s a brilliant justice but he shaves with his tongue. He could become another Robert Bork. Both Scalia and Kennedy will be 67 in 2003. And Clarence Thomas, 55 this year, is still recovering from the Anita Hill debacle. Further, he is regarded as a Scalia clone. (Thomas is a convert to Catholicism. He drifted away from the church for some 28 years but has returned, often attending Mass at St. Joseph’s on Capitol Hill, just behind the court.)
The first Catholic to serve was Roger B. Taney, son of a wealthy slave-owning family, who raised tobacco. Years later, as chief justice, he supported slavery even for descendants of slaves. This was a period during which some Catholic colleges and seminaries used slave labor (now called athletics). Taney, a former Federalist, was the fifth chief justice, appointed by Andrew Jackson in 1836. He served until 1864, long enough to incur the wrath of Abraham Lincoln.
Edward D. White of Louisiana was appointed to the court in 1894 by Grover Cleveland. He was named chief justice in 1910 and led the court until 1921. White graduated from the Jesuit College in New Orleans and then went on to Georgetown. He was the court’s ninth chief justice and was generally considered a conservative, although he did help to speed the advent of the eight-hour day for railroad workers. He was enshrined in Statuary Hall in 1955, together with 13 other Catholics.
Joseph McKenna, a William McKinley appointee, served for 26 years (1898-1925). He had been the U.S. attorney general but had little consistent legal policy. For a few years, he shared the bench with Pierce Butler, a Warren Harding ap-pointee from Minnesota, who served for 16 years (1923-39) and was generally considered a conservative.
Then came Frank Murphy, a New Deal Democrat, appointed in 1940 by Franklin D. Roosevelt. Prior to his nomination, he was widely recognized for his relief efforts. He left the court to serve in World War II but returned and served until 1949. The first -- and next to last -- of the Catholic liberals, he condemned the wartime imprisonment of the Japanese.
William J. Brennan was recognized as a liberal Catholic judge. He served 33 years (1956-90) before retiring, sometimes drawing criticism from major bishops who were growing more conservative. He ruled often for a greater guarantee of justice for the poor. By the time he left the court, two other papist justices, Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy, were serving.
The potential of the voting power of four Catholics on a nine-member court is worth pondering. Only one additional vote from a Jewish justice or a lonely WASP could produce some of the many 5-4 decisions. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 69, second female and a Jew, was appointed by Bill Clinton in 1993. Stephen G. Breyer was appointed in 1994. (He does not list himself as Jewish by religion but is considered a cultural Jew.)
Unfortunately, the four Catholics are conservative, two of them -- Scalia and Thomas -- to the right of Attila the Hun (a devout barbarian), and two others -- Kennedy and (maybe) Gonzales, leaning to the right. There are no Murphys or Brennans.
Presently, there are issues such as capital punishment, just war, abortion, disabilities, immigration, school vouchers, welfare, wages, homosexual unions, sodomy, fair employment and college admissions practices, and so on, that need to be sorted out. Responses all have roots in church teaching but, with the exception of abortion and cloning, it doesn’t seem to matter much anymore. The situation is not unlike the laity’s response to Humanae Vitae, the encyclical on birth control. The bishops continue to rant about birth control but the Catholics in the pew pay no attention. Neither will the justices.
Just when Catholic justices have moved to the center of the bench, it doesn’t seem to matter if they are Cath-olics or Rosicrucians. It’s a shame. My long-deceased father, who finished only grammar school, would not have washed his hands for decades after shaking the hands of four Catholic justices.
"The next justice should be Protestant."
We wish.
Uhm...how about just continuing to choose originalists/constructionists. This is about the LAW, not about religion.
I hate the smell of bigotry in the morning.
"I hate the smell of bigotry in the morning."
Right. Go ahead. The proof will be in the pudding.
Is Alito a Catholic?
Makes one wonder about Miers' conservative Christian credentials, doesn't it?
Yup. Interestingly, all of the conservatives on the court will be Catholics if Alito is confirmed. Thomas, Scalia, Alito, and Roberts. The swing vote, Kennedy, is also Catholic.
Why do you wish for a Protestant? What difference does it make?
Never. That I know of.
Did you like Harriet Miers BECAUSE she was an Evangelical? I don't get this thing about someone's religion. As long as they are Constitutionalists and God-fearing and obeying, what difference does it make?
Because the Catholic religion upholds LIFE and is totally anti-abortion, so people who actually practice Catholicism are pro-lfe.
A Catholic writer would ... the present article (two years old, actually) is from the notoriously unCatholic "National Catholic ReporterDistorter".
There's another important point as well -- the Catholic tradition of philosophy and law. One can always look back to St. Thomas's Treatise on Law and the writings of St. Thomas More to see the strength of that tradition.
I definitely would trust a strong evangelical to do the right thing on the court, but it is no accident that the conservative judges tend to be Catholics.
Yes, thanks for pointing that out.
If only they did.
Looks like we were both wrong. 8~(
Again, why does it matter? Alito is Conservative AND Catholic. Why is this a problem?
Depends on their record. How many would be acceptable to you?
OK, gotcha.
When you look at the big picture, the cultural fight boils down to 'what is a name'.
Fathers determine that, and when the kids don't receive that, it doesn't change the hunger for 'Dad' any less.
Protestantism in short is a fight that came about because the RCC did not, via its priesthood, provide in a manner faithful to their own Bible, the role of 'Father'.
We are reproducing history. Now the secular priests run the show, the high priests of which live in the rationalist nirvana known as the 'Ivy League'.
It is the rationalism-and-nothing-but-rationalism crowd who run the show, and Protestants do not believe an exclusive commitment to rationalism is good for society. Exclusive rationalism has led to 30 percent of all kids, that get born that is, to be born to single moms. Exclusive rationalism now means that grown men sexually abusing young boys is seen as potentially 'debatable', because such affection is not really 'abuse'.
And, most of all, exclusive rationalism will absolutely lead to polygamy. The folks who read, and believe, in the Koran will like that 'rational' result.
In short, I don't believe rationalism is secular. I believe it is religious, as religious as 'catholicism', as religious as Tamudic Judaism, as religious as Marxism and scientific naturalism, and as religious as Traditional, Covenental Protestant Theology.
And right now, there is an established religion in this country, backed back by enforcement powers of the U.S. Government. It is called 'Exclusive Secular Rationalism', and its temples are in Washington D. C.
But my ranting about it won't make a difference; for the truth is plain: if we protestants, especially the southern conservative variety, had been doing our jobs as Godly, Christ-like men, then the seeking of the same for judgeships would be a no brainer.
It is the rejection of us, that should send us a message of just how far away we are from where we should be...
Yes, I think a southern protestant conservative should be on SCOTUS. But I'm much more irratated about the lying about just what religion is actually being established in the USA. Theocrats are running the show, posing as secular scientists. I really hate being lied to ....
So, time will tell. The outcome of the cases coming to the court will prove the tale...
But the reality of the longing for a real 'Dad' just won't disappear. The court cases will all be geared to destroying even more the role of Dad, but that won't change the need.
*sigh*
I'm not really being very clear tonight. Too many devils out there, interrupting, begging for Chocolate.
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.