Welcome to the society of cheap, ugly, rhetorical trick users, then. Enjoy your stay!
Most of the justices listed undoubtedly sat on the court one or two at a time. Their ability to influence the court wrt to Catholic doctrine was limited by thier numbers and their personal pwoers of persuasion. Even if they voted strictly in line with Catholic political doctrine every time, it wouldn’t have swayed the court much. Four Catholic justices is a solid block, though.
Actually, I’d like to unstrike it and offer it as evidence that perhaps your point is indeed fueled by anti-Catholic bias. If it were not, why would this line have ended up in the OP?
So, lemme get this straight. If I don’t know the whole catechism, I can’t discuss the propriety of having so many Catholics on the Supreme Court? Well, that sounds kind of like the opinions of some on this other boards I’ve seen who’ve said, “If you don’t have a lot of money, you can’t discuss financial or economic issues, because if you knew anything about finance and economics, you’d have a lot of money.” Very self-serving to say the least. So far as I know, all you need is $15 bucks to post here, and no knowledge of the catechism. But – good try, nonetheless.
You’re right. I might welcome a liberation-theory Catholic to the bench. Then again, most of them have already been driven out of the Church. It being so non-political and all.
I know EXACTLY where the Catholic Church has historically stood of censorship in America, and it’s nowhere near the side of the angels, from my POV. The oppose not only abortion, but birth control as well. And the Catholic leadership has been kinda high-handed in this whole Catholic peddo preist outrage in a way that makes me think they really think their law outranks ours. I think I have grounds to be concerned.
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.
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.”
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.
Not effectively, no.
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.
While you only need money to post here, you do need knowledge to debate here. Bad try on your part.
I hope this is an admission, not an accusation.
A quote like this, which appears to decry the use of “cheap, ugly rhetorical trick[s]” and those who use them seems, analytically speaking, incompatible with your “cathechism vs. economics” comparison. If you’re going to debate, please debate.
I thought someone would bring up that religious test thingy.
Let me ask you this. If we had three devout Muslims on the Court, and were considering a fourth, wouldn’t it be reasonable to ask them about their opinion of the relative rank of Sharia law and secular law? Of course, we’re not talking about Muslims, we’re talking about Catholics. But what’s the problem with considering the relative ranking of Catholic doctrines and secular law? Does this constitute a “relgious test”? I don’t think so.
If the question is appropriate, it’s appropriate for all potential candidates for the position.
Emphasis added.
Holy cow.
EC, report to 1928- the Hoover campaign desperately needs you.
Friend Bricker, I’d LOVE to help you. I really would. My heart bleeds for your desire to unstrike it. But I can’t, as it has already been stricken. It’s a stare decis thing. Rule of law and all that. It’s REALLY KILLING me that I can’t unstrike that comment, but I can’t because that’s the rule. Oh, if you could hear the wailing, see the gnashing of teeth, you would understand my profound unease at being unable to unstrike that line. Bummer. Really.
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 got no problem with Catholics, but too many on the Court and the property values go down. Plus they smell funny, and have too many kids. Wouldn’t they be happier with their own kind?
Not that I am bigoted, mind you.
Regards,
Shodan
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?
Concerns about Catholics in American government? Let me check the calender; I may have fallen back to 1960.
This is a sad, sad thread and I am extremely disappointed that its on the SDMB. Evil Captor you should be ashamed of yourself.
Just keep Justice Roberts out of Dallas.
And away from convertibles.
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.
Don’t hold your breath. His OP grazingly admits that Kennedy is hardly an arch-conservative or theocrat, but since then he’s kept talking about the “four Catholics” as though they would form a single bloc, taking direction (in the worst case – he just wants to warn us!) from that Nazi dude in a dress in Rome.
I’m cool with that.
I have to agree with those who are dismayed. Evil Captor, I usually agree with you on most things (substantive, anyway…procedural, we have differences) political, but this concern really does seem to hark back to the first part of the last century. Catholics can’t become too numerous in government or we’ll all be forced to kowtow to the Pope? Sounds very Maria Monk to me…
Hmmm. I have re-read this thread twice, now, and I seem to still see the same questionable lines appearing on my screen. There are not, in fact, stricken from the record. 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.
You have smeared the word “Catholic” all over this thread when your objection is to right-wing politics or to a particular philosophy of jurisprudence. Your claims that the RCC can (or will) exercise any control over an individual in a particular position are based on a (one hopes not deliberate) misreading of actual statements from various Catholic authorities over the last ten years. For example, you make a great deal out of calls by some clerics to link participation in the sacraments with particular political positions while significantly ignoring the fact that those clerics were a tiny minority within the church and that their opinions were actually condemned by the National Council of Catholic Bishops. You have also made an odd claim regarding the pope without providing a citiation (or, more importantly, a context–and as anyone who has ever studied church history (as you have not) is aware, context is everything in such statements).
I think we can safely declare that those statements have not been stricken and that they reflect a major portion of (not to say the essence of) your argument.