Experts Question Catholic Majority in U.S. Supreme Court
A sad reminder of what Catholics in public office still face:
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito voiced frustration Tuesday over what he called persistent questions about the court's Roman Catholic majority.
Alito aired the topic in a speech to an Italian-American law group in Philadelphia.
"There has been so much talk lately about the number of Catholics serving on the Supreme Court," Alito said in a speech to the Justinian Society. "This is one of those questions that does not die."
Alito complained about "respectable people who have seriously raised the questions in serious publications about whether these individuals could be trusted to do their jobs."
He said he thought the Constitution settled the question long ago with its guarantee of religious freedom.
Alito, 59, the son of an Italian immigrant, is one of six justices on the nine-member court who were raised Catholic, including new Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
... The Roman Catholic Church endorses positions on several high-profile legal issues, including abortion, the death penalty and gay marriage. Some commentators have argued that Catholics in the court's conservative voting bloc — Chief John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Alito — are likely to oppose abortion or otherwise apply Catholic teachings to their rulings. (AP)
Three quick thoughts:
-- The elephant in the room here is social issues such as abortion and gay marriage. No one would complain about Catholics stacking the supreme court bench if they all were liberal on their views about these issues. No one complains about how many Catholics Obama has appointed to his administration, because all of his appointments agree with his liberal views on these issues. As I've said before, the kind of Catholic the President likes, is a bad Catholic (a "bad Catholic" is someone who actively dissents from the Church's teaching).
-- Catholics on the supreme court who oppose abortion and same-sex marriage do not do so because they are Catholic, they do this because they can think. Catholic opposition to practices which harm human life and society are enlightened by faith through reason, not dictated by faith in opposition to reason. The bottom line here is that you don't have to be Catholic to oppose abortion and same-sex marriage. But it can help your conviction.
-- The recent case of Sonia Sotomayor's nomination is a perfect illustration of the ulterior purpose behind this stupid claim that there are "too many Catholics on the supreme court." The fact that Sotomayor promised to uphold the unjust precedent established by Roe v. Wade - and was never fundamentally challenged to express her opinion about homosexual marriage - guaranteed that pundits would not go after her too much for her religion. If she promised to uphold the natural law conclusions about the dignity of human life and the uniqueness of heterosexual marriage, things would have been very different.
Bottom line: there is no reason to accuse Catholics of being bad for America. Such a charge is always a cheap-shot which ignores the substantive arguments that Catholics bring into the debate, and the long tradition of public service that today's Catholics are proud to continue.
It's time to face our arguments, not accuse our religion.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito voiced frustration Tuesday over what he called persistent questions about the court's Roman Catholic majority.
Alito aired the topic in a speech to an Italian-American law group in Philadelphia.
"There has been so much talk lately about the number of Catholics serving on the Supreme Court," Alito said in a speech to the Justinian Society. "This is one of those questions that does not die."
Alito complained about "respectable people who have seriously raised the questions in serious publications about whether these individuals could be trusted to do their jobs."
He said he thought the Constitution settled the question long ago with its guarantee of religious freedom.
Alito, 59, the son of an Italian immigrant, is one of six justices on the nine-member court who were raised Catholic, including new Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
... The Roman Catholic Church endorses positions on several high-profile legal issues, including abortion, the death penalty and gay marriage. Some commentators have argued that Catholics in the court's conservative voting bloc — Chief John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Alito — are likely to oppose abortion or otherwise apply Catholic teachings to their rulings. (AP)
Three quick thoughts:
-- The elephant in the room here is social issues such as abortion and gay marriage. No one would complain about Catholics stacking the supreme court bench if they all were liberal on their views about these issues. No one complains about how many Catholics Obama has appointed to his administration, because all of his appointments agree with his liberal views on these issues. As I've said before, the kind of Catholic the President likes, is a bad Catholic (a "bad Catholic" is someone who actively dissents from the Church's teaching).
-- Catholics on the supreme court who oppose abortion and same-sex marriage do not do so because they are Catholic, they do this because they can think. Catholic opposition to practices which harm human life and society are enlightened by faith through reason, not dictated by faith in opposition to reason. The bottom line here is that you don't have to be Catholic to oppose abortion and same-sex marriage. But it can help your conviction.
-- The recent case of Sonia Sotomayor's nomination is a perfect illustration of the ulterior purpose behind this stupid claim that there are "too many Catholics on the supreme court." The fact that Sotomayor promised to uphold the unjust precedent established by Roe v. Wade - and was never fundamentally challenged to express her opinion about homosexual marriage - guaranteed that pundits would not go after her too much for her religion. If she promised to uphold the natural law conclusions about the dignity of human life and the uniqueness of heterosexual marriage, things would have been very different.
Bottom line: there is no reason to accuse Catholics of being bad for America. Such a charge is always a cheap-shot which ignores the substantive arguments that Catholics bring into the debate, and the long tradition of public service that today's Catholics are proud to continue.
It's time to face our arguments, not accuse our religion.











Experts Question Catholic Majority in U.S. Supreme Court
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
If you are concerned about cheap-shots...
You should know that you have come to the cheap- shooting range. You'll find scant argument but deep veins of criticism and anger toward your positions and toward your very religion here.
Theophobes abound.
- SolarSanitizer
October 21, 2009 1:48PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I don't think
I don't think it hurts to remind our justices that we expect to see fair and reasoned decisions, not simply knee-jerk responses which endorse particular religious views. Justices are most certainly allowed their personal religious beliefs and freedoms, but they are not allowed to decide cases based solely upon those religious views.
What if, for instance, they decided to overturn the death penalty because the RCC is strongly anti-death-penalty? What if they decided to make anti- gun laws because their religion endorses pacifism?
- Babaroni
October 21, 2009 2:12PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Or rather
Or rather, decided to interpret the 2nd amendment as not applying to individual freedom to carry weapons...
- Babaroni
October 21, 2009 2:14PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Then we will do what we always do
To Supreme Court Justices when they displease us:
Kvetch a little and replace them when they retire or die.
- SolarSanitizer
October 21, 2009 2:29PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I think it might a little presumptious to tell
Supreme Court Justice how to rule on anything. We don't have much of a direct voice in the matter, tbh. Recognizing where we have control and where we don't will save us all a lot of time and a little blood pressure.
- SolarSanitizer
October 21, 2009 2:28PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
This is true
It's true that Supreme Court Justices are the public officials over which we have the absolute least control. I can't blame people, however, for having some concerns on this particular point. By permitting a majority of ANY group onto the bench, we put ourselves at a certain amount of risk for a group voting as a block on particular hot-button issues. Since I rarely agree with the Roman Catholic Church on most issues (a few exceptions), I would be really unhappy if we find decisions coming out of the Supreme Court which appear to be conforming more to papal dictates than to freedoms protected by the constitution .
- Babaroni
October 21, 2009 5:32PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.