Just what could possibly be the point of your agreement with the Huffington Post that there are too many Catholics on the SCOTUS? I am a Catholic who would gladly defer to Reformed (and serious) Christians to replace Sotomayor (in ten seconds flat) and probably Anthony (Sandra Day) O'Kennedy and Chief Justice Roberts (given the infamous vote that saved Obozocare. Evangelicals are obviously the most under-represented religion on SCOTUS.
The most over-represented religion (whether by faith or ancestral identification) would be Jews and a lot of Jews here can probably speak for themselves on the subject better than I can speak for them but might well be willing to trade in Kagan and one of the other two. That's up to them.
If we can elect a POTUS worth electing (and I don't care a whit whether Catholic or not since another Ronaldus Maximus would do fine) and he or she can nominate the successors, he or she should feel free to appoint as many Reformed Christians as they please. Being chosen for SCOTUS is serious business not analogous to electing a prom queen and claiming bragging rights for one's ethnic or religious group.
Of very great importance is to avoid unnecessary doctrinal squabbling, particularly among actual conservatives to the detriment of movement and country. Neither Catholic Justices nor any others are going to be asked to rule on such Catholic doctines as the perpetual virginity of Mary, her immaculate conception, her assumption into heaven, the Real Presence of Jesus Christ, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Holy Eucharist, etc., etc., etc. No Reformed Christian on SCOTUS will be asked to render decisions on Scripture, sola or otherwise, Luther's Theses, Jean Cauvin's beiefs and writings or any other such matters.
I believe that Catholics and Evangelicals alike on a POLITICAL website can manage to practice their respective faiths (which agree on about 95%) without rubbing one anothers' noses in the 5% that is the difference.
You would not favor David Souter, John Paul Stevens, Herod Blackmun, Potter Stewart, Earl Warren and the like any more than I would favor Sonia Sotomayor, William Brennan, any Hyannisport related Kennedy, the late Fr. Robert Drinan, or John Kerry. The reason is not their respective claims of religious affiliation (mostly bogus) but rather their insufferable secular beliefs. The day that worthwhile members of your religious persuasion/commitment or whatever are nominated and confirmed will cause this Catholic joy not trepidation and, especially, if the appointee(s) is/are very young, very healthy and has/have a stiff backbone.
You get the last word since I try to avoid these conflicts.
Well, I thank you for the response, but it’s not a very good argument to make that somehow my concerns over the GOP-nominated Catholics aren’t credible because the Huffington Post opposes the conservative Catholics on the Court. That happens a lot in politics, and means nothing because my reasons and theirsfor writing are completely different.
And again, as I’ve written to other, there is no such thing as religion and politics being mutually exclusive. The SC justices ultimately interpret the Constitution and decide issues on their personal beliefs. Of course, that’s why they are intensely scrutinized (including on their religion) before beingnominated and then during confirmation. If religion and politics is separate, how do you decide when life begins, or what marriage is, etc.?