# Justice Roberts: Do we need ANOTHER hardcore Catholic on the Supreme Court? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 2, 2005, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justice-roberts-do-we-need-another-hardcore-catholic-on-the-supreme-court/315324 "2005-08-02T17:06:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justice-roberts-do-we-need-another-hardcore-catholic-on-the-supreme-court/315324/41 "2005-08-02T20:22:26Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > I’d say it would be appropriate to question any potential justice about his stance on the seperation of church and state, regardless of his religion. Why you think this would be more of an issue with Catholics escapes me. Why would a Catholic be any more likely to listen to the Pope, than a Baptist justice be likely to base his rulings on what his minister tells him, or a Jewish justice to bast it his rulings on what his rabbi tells him? I’ve said this twice, I’ll say it a third time, hopefully you will hear me this time: Catholicism is a hierarchical religion. According to Catholic doctrine, the preists, etc. intercede between God and the individual Catholic. In other religions, there’s a direct relationship between God and the individual. So no one can be excommunicated for having political opinions that vary from the faithful’s. A rabbi’s ruling, or a Protestant minster’s judgement, are really just opinions, however respected that opinion might be. Not so Catholicism. So a politician or a judge can say, 'I understand your concerns rabbi, but in my conversations wthh God on this issue, we see things differently. Sorry. And that’s it. But a preist says, “Your opinion may be what it is, but this opinion comes from Rome, and you can’t disagree with it and be a Catholic.” Whole different story, you see? ---
**Author:** ![Metacom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecae2f/32.png) [@Metacom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Metacom)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justice-roberts-do-we-need-another-hardcore-catholic-on-the-supreme-court/315324/42 "2005-08-02T20:26:05Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > You are simply trying a dodge of plausible deniability for having opened a rather bigoted thread in which you attempt to make an issue of a man’s poltics based on his association with a particular religious group. Welcome to the “society of cheap, ugly, rhetorical trick users”, **tomndebb**. An introductory pamphlet detailing member benefits has been mailed. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justice-roberts-do-we-need-another-hardcore-catholic-on-the-supreme-court/315324/43 "2005-08-02T20:29:47Z")
> [@](#): > > I’ve said this twice, I’ll say it a third time, hopefully you will hear me this time: We hear you. We simply understand, better than you, apparently, that your claim is a caricature of the actual relationship between a person and the _Magisterium_ of the Church, particularly in the realm of making political decisions. Row v Wade has been the law of the land for over 30 years. Numerous Catholic judges (including Brennan, who sat on the Supreme Court at that time) have performed their functions without let or hindrance from Rome. You truly do not understand the complexity of the issues you address and your claims are, in a word, wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justice-roberts-do-we-need-another-hardcore-catholic-on-the-supreme-court/315324/44 "2005-08-02T20:39:17Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > So a politician or a judge can say, 'I understand your concerns rabbi, but in my conversations wthh God on this issue, we see things differently. Sorry. And that’s it. But a preist says, “Your opinion may be what it is, but this opinion comes from Rome, and you can’t disagree with it and be a Catholic.” > > Whole different story, you see? But, again, that doesn’t seem to happen. As **Tom** mentioned, Justice Brennan supported abortion rights, in spite of the Catholic Church’s oppostion. Justice Scalia supports capital punishment, in spite of the Catholic Church’s opposition. ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justice-roberts-do-we-need-another-hardcore-catholic-on-the-supreme-court/315324/45 "2005-08-02T20:40:13Z")
Is the fact that some authorities in the Catholic Church have threatened to withhold various sacraments from Catholic politicians, who do not kowtow to current Church doctrine, something to be concerned about or not, especially concerning a devout Catholic politician for whom a lifetime appointment is at stake? THAT is the debate, not whether **Evil Captor** is bigoted against Catholics, or not. I personally find it unlikely that Judge Roberts would put current Catholic doctrine ahead of the U.S. Constitution. There’s nothing in his background that suggests he would, as far as I can tell. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justice-roberts-do-we-need-another-hardcore-catholic-on-the-supreme-court/315324/46 "2005-08-02T20:46:07Z")
**Evil Captor** , have you ever _met_ an American Catholic? The idea that the American laity has any tendencies toward any kind of zombie-ism from the Vatican is to laugh! They’re the prodigal sons of Catholicism. The concept and term “cafeteria Catholic” ORIGINATED in the USA. Your posts in this thread are positing some form of hive mind that just doesn’t exist. I know a lot more Catholics who are much more likely to greet a fire-and-brimstone sermon against birth control with “That priest is nuts” than “must…burn…condoms…” ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justice-roberts-do-we-need-another-hardcore-catholic-on-the-supreme-court/315324/47 "2005-08-02T20:54:26Z")
> [@SemperFi](#): > > A solid block of what? First, it’s not a majority. > > Second, any reference to Kennedy is a makeweight at best (and that’s paying you a compliment in assuming you don’t just dislike Catholics per se, but are just concerned with their supposed over-conservatism) – Kennedy voted with O’Connor and Souter in _Casey_ and is no threat to become a strict constructionist in the service of Roman doctrine. Agreed, Kennedy is not a hardcore Catholic, which is why I used the phrase in my OP. However, the two most troglodyte, neanderthal scum on the Court ARE hardcore Catholics – Thomas and Scalia. Now we propose to add another Catholic to the court, recommended by President Dubya, who is known for his hardcore, uncompromising approach to politics, and I have to think he’s more likely to be a Scalia/Thomas kinda Catholic than a Kennedy kinda Catholic (in any sense of the world “Kennedy.” Even with Kennedy not being part of a solid block there, the thought of a third Scalia-like trog on the bench is scary. Especially with Rome turning kind of troglodyte right of late. > [@](#): > > Third, Catholics make up between 20% and 25% of America’s population. Your concern is founded on the fact that potentially 44% of the Justices could (for a time) be Catholic. Is that so disproportionate as to merit notice, let alone alarm (especially given that Kennedy shows little sign of “voting Catholic” in any discernible way)? > As causes for concern go, if we’re going to play an “overrepresentation” game, I’d think the substantial, almost huge, overrepresentation of Protestants (vis a vis their proportion in the population) at the Presidential and Supreme Court level over the past couple of hundred years would rank a lot higher. So would the substantial “overrepresentation” of Jews on the Supreme Court in recent decades (3% of the population, 22% of the Court today), especially given that the current “Jewish bloc” votes much more unanimously and consistently “liberal-activist” than the alleged Catholic-bloc votes “conservative-activist.” Yes, historically white male protestants have been over-represented in American … everything. And Jews are over-represented, too. Women, seriously under-represented, and thanks to Roberts, about to be even seriouslier under-represented. But do any of them have this hierarchical approach to religion I’ve been talking about? > [@](#): > > The answer to all of this is, the President gets to appoint whoever he chooses. Don’t like it? Lobby the President, lobby Congress or (my fave solution), return us to the days when unelected Platonic guardians did not make all the important social policy decisions in our country. Something WRONG with discussing it on a message board? ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Scrappy\_Hero\_Pup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ea5d25/32.png) [@Happy\_Scrappy\_Hero\_Pup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Scrappy_Hero_Pup)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justice-roberts-do-we-need-another-hardcore-catholic-on-the-supreme-court/315324/48 "2005-08-02T20:55:22Z")
> [@Knorf](#): > > Is the fact that some authorities in the Catholic Church have threatened to withhold various sacraments from Catholic politicians, who do not kowtow to current Church doctrine, something to be concerned about or not, especially concerning a devout Catholic politician for whom a lifetime appointment is at stake? Your question needs refining. _People_ in positions of authority within the Church have threatened to withhold sacraments. No _authority_ of the Church has threatened to withhold sacraments. In fact, the practice of such threats has been condemned by actual authority. The thread is whether we need a CATHOLIC on the Supreme Court, not whether we need ROBERTS. This thread is part of a distinguishable bias against Catholics by **Evil Captor** , and he is attempting to shoehorn that bias into a question on politics. It’s not fitting, man. Let this one go. I’m sure my people will do something even more monumentally heinous as soon as we get the next directive beamed into our crucifixes by Vatican Command. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justice-roberts-do-we-need-another-hardcore-catholic-on-the-supreme-court/315324/49 "2005-08-02T20:56:10Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > In other religions, there’s a direct relationship between God and the individual. So no one can be excommunicated for having political opinions that vary from the faithful’s. A rabbi’s ruling, or a Protestant minster’s judgement, are really just opinions, however respected that opinion might be. Not so Catholicism. > > So a politician or a judge can say, 'I understand your concerns rabbi, but in my conversations wthh God on this issue, we see things differently. Sorry. And that’s it. But a preist says, “Your opinion may be what it is, but this opinion comes from Rome, and you can’t disagree with it and be a Catholic.” > > Whole different story, you see? No, and neither do you. Give an example of the sort of act for which (a) Catholic canon law permits excommunication, and (b) you believe a Supreme Court Justice should be permitted to commit. ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justice-roberts-do-we-need-another-hardcore-catholic-on-the-supreme-court/315324/50 "2005-08-02T21:02:54Z")
> [@Happy Scrappy Hero Pup](#): > > _People_ in positions of authority within the Church have threatened to withhold sacraments. > > No _authority_ of the Church has threatened to withhold sacraments. A subtle distinction. So there is an authority within the Catholic Church that is not comprised of people? So you mean God himself has not come down to threaten the withholding of sacraments? Or do you mean that some people, higher in authority within the Church than the threateners, have disagreed with the threats? 😉 Anyway, if you want to bash **Evil Captor** for anti-Catholic bias, I say take it to the Pit. It is not a subject worthy for debate here. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Scrappy\_Hero\_Pup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ea5d25/32.png) [@Happy\_Scrappy\_Hero\_Pup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Scrappy_Hero_Pup)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justice-roberts-do-we-need-another-hardcore-catholic-on-the-supreme-court/315324/51 "2005-08-02T21:03:04Z")
> [@](#): > > However, the two most troglodyte, neanderthal scum on the Court ARE hardcore Catholics – Thomas and Scalia. But Thomas and Scalia are split on major issues like capital punishment. So how do you reconcile that with their religion “directing” them on such matters? > [@](#): > > Now we propose to add another Catholic to the court, recommended by President Dubya, who is known for his hardcore, uncompromising approach to politics, and I have to think he’s more likely to be a Scalia/Thomas kinda Catholic than a Kennedy kinda Catholic (in any sense of the world “Kennedy.” _Define_ “Scalia/Thomas kinda Catholic.” What stance defines such a Catholic? Because, as I think it’s been pointed out many times, the two are not congruent or indistinguishable. > [@](#): > > Even with Kennedy not being part of a solid block there, the thought of a third Scalia-like trog on the bench is scary. There’s only one Scalia-like anything on the Supreme Court: Scalia. > [@](#): > > Especially with Rome turning kind of troglodyte right of late. Ummm… what? The main knock on Rome is that it is unchanging. Your main knock on “Rome” with regard to AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa is that its stance is unchanging. “Rome” hasn’t _turned_ anything. It’s been more consistent in its politics than any entity of which I can conceive. And, by the way, Rome is a city in Italy. The seat of Catholic power is Vatican City, which is a separate city and separate nation. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Scrappy\_Hero\_Pup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ea5d25/32.png) [@Happy\_Scrappy\_Hero\_Pup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Scrappy_Hero_Pup)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justice-roberts-do-we-need-another-hardcore-catholic-on-the-supreme-court/315324/52 "2005-08-02T21:07:48Z")
> [@Knorf](#): > > A subtle distinction. So there is an authority within the Catholic Church that is not comprised of people? So you mean God himself has not come down to threaten the withholding of sacraments? Or do you mean that some people, higher in authority within the Church than the threateners, have disagreed wth the threats? But an important one. If I, while wearing my uniform that marks me as a police officer, express disapproval of the fact that you are chewing your gum with your mouth open, so be it. But if I try to exert that authority as a police officer by arresting you, my commanding officer will laugh me right out of the precinct. So it is with the Church and withholding of the sacraments. A priest may refuse to give a \*Roe v. Wade \* supporter communion, but that doesn’t mean that his actions are sanctioned by the Church. And I’m not going to bash Evil Captor for an anti-Catholic bias. But I’ve certainly pointed it out, as have others. It’s no insult and no pitting to call a spade a spade. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justice-roberts-do-we-need-another-hardcore-catholic-on-the-supreme-court/315324/53 "2005-08-02T21:08:40Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > Agreed, Kennedy is not a hardcore Catholic, which is why I used the phrase in my OP. As the New York Times [pointed out](http://www.nytimes.com/1987/11/12/national/12KENN.html) when Kennedy was nominated: > [@](#): > > Judge Kennedy is an active member of the Roman Catholic Church, which has led opposition to abortion and homosexual behavior, but his personal views on those issues could not be readily determined. What makes Kennedy not a hardcore Catholic? Because he’s voted pro-choice? If your real problem with Roberts is that he’s pro-life, then say so, rather than talking about his religion. ---
**Author:** ![SemperFi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e5b9ba/32.png) [@SemperFi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SemperFi)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justice-roberts-do-we-need-another-hardcore-catholic-on-the-supreme-court/315324/54 "2005-08-02T21:09:32Z")
> [@Knorf](#): > > Is the fact that some authorities in the Catholic Church have threatened to withhold various sacraments from Catholic politicians, who do not kowtow to current Church doctrine, something to be concerned about or not, especially concerning a devout Catholic politician for whom a lifetime appointment is at stake? There are no examples of which we’re aware in which (1) a Catholic authority, with the appropriate jurisdiction, threatened to withold sacraments; and (2) a judge acted in response to such threat. There are a substantial number of instances in which, for instance, someone could just as easily say that Ruth Ginsburg was “acting in conformity with her absolutist Jewish liberalism.” At least on the track record, liberal judicial activism ideology, and the absolutist view that, e.g., abortion must be legal in each and every circumstance, for ever, has provided a **substantially** more effective and binding form of “instruction for how to rule” as to the Catholic and Jewish liberal judges, than has any hypothetical Catholic mandate-issuance as to orthodox Catholic judges. Isn’t that the issue, what works in practice? Or have you not stopped to think that Catholicism is far from the only hierarchical, “absolutist,” authoritarian, dogmatic belief system going? So far, in the modern era, I think it’s trailing the pack in terms of getting any results from its supposed mandates to elected and unelected officials. A separate issue is the OP’s basis for designating Scalia and Thomas “scum,” but as I think that kind of speaks for itself and puts the OP in proper context, I’ll refrain. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justice-roberts-do-we-need-another-hardcore-catholic-on-the-supreme-court/315324/55 "2005-08-02T22:13:14Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > But do any of them have this hierarchical approach to religion I’ve been talking about? No. And neither do Catholics have this rather silly and Jack-Chickish caricature that you have painted of them. > [@Knorf](#): > > Anyway, if you want to bash Evil Captor for anti-Catholic bias, I say take it to the Pit. It is not a subject worthy for debate here. If **Evil Captor** would like to have this moved to the **Pit** , I’ll oblige him. But I have not seen anyone bashing **Evil Captor** so much as shredding his rather ludicrous OP. I agree this is hardly worthy of **GD** , but then I did not put it here. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justice-roberts-do-we-need-another-hardcore-catholic-on-the-supreme-court/315324/56 "2005-08-02T22:20:01Z")
> [@Happy Scrappy Hero Pup](#): > > Not effectively, no. Then by all means feel free to confine your debates who know what you do and think as you do. Should make for nice, brief debates! [/quote] You’re making an impossible leap here. It is possible to understand the principles of economics and debate them without having money. It is not possible to understand the the principles of Catholicism and debate them without having knowledge of the principles of Catholicism. [/quote] Is that the debate here? I don’t remember mentioning it in the OP. > [@](#): > > While you only need money to post here, you do need knowledge to debate here. Bad try on your part. Knowledge helps, certainly. But all you really need is a general knowledge of the rules of debate and a willingness to adhere to them. Frex, what you’re making is an argument to authority. “No one can discuss this subject unless they know what I feel they must.” Sorry, won’t work here. ---
**Author:** ![Metacom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecae2f/32.png) [@Metacom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Metacom)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justice-roberts-do-we-need-another-hardcore-catholic-on-the-supreme-court/315324/57 "2005-08-02T22:38:34Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > Frex, what you’re making is an argument to authority. “No one can discuss this subject unless they know what I feel they must.” I think “No one can meaningfully debate this subject if he doesn’t know very much about the subject” is a more accurate characterization of what he’s saying; it’s certainly not a falacious argument to make. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justice-roberts-do-we-need-another-hardcore-catholic-on-the-supreme-court/315324/58 "2005-08-02T22:38:40Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > This certainly doesn’t do anything to refute the hypothesis. > > Let me guess. You “Know Nothing” about anti-Catholic bias, right? Eh? Am I close? Yes. I am afraid the Pope will take Philadelphia by force. That’s what Roberts’ candidacy is really all about. You have me now, Bricker, you’re just too smart for me! ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justice-roberts-do-we-need-another-hardcore-catholic-on-the-supreme-court/315324/59 "2005-08-02T22:46:17Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > You’re right, that does obscure the clarity of the debate. We’ll consider that stricken. I’ll give you credit for admitting a mistake. But you’re still confusing Catholic with Social Conservative. If you want to link a religion to social conservatisn, it would be the evangelical and funamentalist Protestant faiths, not Catholics. But even then, to criticize a justice simply because of his faith is, well, unAmerican. Perhaps we should sentence EC to spend a few weeks debating with some Jesuits 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justice-roberts-do-we-need-another-hardcore-catholic-on-the-supreme-court/315324/60 "2005-08-02T22:59:43Z")
> [@Captain Amazing](#): > > Well, but did they? Look at some of the names on that list…they’re opposites of each other. > > Pierce Butler was an adamently anti-New Deal conservative…one of the “four horsemen” that struck down a lot of New Deal legislation. Frank Murphy, on the other hand, was a New Dealer liberal. > > Edward White was a segregationist from Louisiana. Sherman Minton was an ardent opponent of segregation and voted in Brown that segregation was unconstitutional. > > William Brennan was the main liberal voice of the Warren and Brennan court, and among other things, was a major supporter of abortion rights and an opponent of capital punishment. Scalia is the main conservative voice of the Rehnquist court and is known as a vocal opponent of abortion and a supporter of capital punishment. > > So, if you’re going to claim that there’s some sort of “Catholic” position on issues that binds all of these Catholic justices, you’re going to have to show it. Abortion? Birth Control? Censorship? These are currently pretty strong Catholic positions on issues currently. If you want to go back to the 1800s, join Bricker there, I’m sure you’ll have fun. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justice-roberts-do-we-need-another-hardcore-catholic-on-the-supreme-court/315324.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justice-roberts-do-we-need-another-hardcore-catholic-on-the-supreme-court/315324.md?page=4)