Replies

From the responses here, many people have to come to understand what the actual “no religious test” clause means, or they have to apply what they know. It’s concerning to read such responses because apparently those giving them won’t be able to answer atheists on similar topics.

This is NOT any sort of violation of “no religious test.” I hope that evangelicals will start to contact Republicans and let them know that while some conservative Catholics are acceptable, differences remain & matter, and there should be some evangelicals on the SC. Now, if there was something “unconstitutional” going on, it could actually be taken to court, not only criticized on a web site! Where is there any violation about this thread or what it suggests that you can take to court?

From the responses here, many people have to come to understand what the actual “no religious test” clause means, or they have to apply what they know.

The plain language of the text should do the trick for the meaning of the clause. This is a Court, not a Parliament. In the case of the current Court, Thomas was not Catholic when he was confirmed, but became so after. Bork was non-religious when he was nominated, but became Catholic later in life (Deo gratias).

A good president should nominate the best qualified man or woman for the court, and if that happens to be a Catholic or four, so be it. If it happens to be a fair-minded non-believer who understands that our institutions presuppose a Creator and judges according to the right inderstanding of the Constitution, also fine. If we could get nine Janice Rogers Browns (non-Catholic Christian), we Catholics would be happy with that. What we would not be happy with is the notion that there are too many Catholics on the Court, We don't like quotas.