Replies

I carried this same argument to my local paper. The editor ditched the article after the first day. A liberal professor
was talking religious diversity by putting a Hindu on the Supreme Court and talking historic symmetry, lol.

“49 of the 55 delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention were Protestants and yet we don’t have one today on the Supreme Court. The Constitution states there should be no religious test for office, but there clearly is. We have six Catholics (was seven) and two Jews on the Supreme Court. I guess it’s fine for a liberal professor to pontificate about diversity on the court except when it comes to religious diversity. You would think the Secularist here would be appalled that one religious denomination rules the Supreme Court, but I’m sure that’s not the case.

Obama has proven himself to be such a partisan hack, I’m surprised he never nominated anyone from his “Christian” faith, after all Protestants make up over 51 percent of the population. George Stephanopoulos had to remind him of his “Christian” faith after declaring his “Muslim” faith on national television. Since we’re talking history here professor, maybe you can enlighten us on the history of Abraham Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus, martial law, and arresting the chief justice of the Supreme Court during his era. Lincoln’s administration destroyed the separation of powers; destroyed the place of the Supreme Court in the Constitutional scheme of government and put the President, the military, and the executive branch of government in total control of American society. Strange how history repeats itself, this is just a preview.”

There isn’t a protestant on the court. Its all Catholic and jewish, and 99% east coast.

The last part of that is a BIG problem. We have absolutely no regional representation on the Court. No one from the South, no one from the Midwest, no one from the Southwest, etc. It’s pretty absurd if you think about it. And that’s matched with not having any diversity at all in terms of the Justices’ legal background.

I would guess there are tons of excellent attorneys/judges that have practiced in states like Nevada, or Iowa, or New Mexico, and have their law degrees from places like the University of Montana, or University of Colorado, University of Minnesota, etc. But those folks will never ever get considered because they come from the “wrong” parts of the country or the “wrong” law school.

Instead we have judicial pinheads like Justice Kagan, who never practiced law (other than a year as a junior associate) and had in fact never even been in a courtroom before Obama installed her as Solicitor General in order so he could set her up for the Supreme Court. Her background was entirely in the little ivory towers of University of Chicago and Harvard Law Schools, and in being in political positions for the Clinton White House. But she has the right liberal career in academia, and so this woman, one of the most unqualified nominees ever, is happily sitting on the highest court in the land.