Depends. A lot of “Jews” are only so culturally and ethnically-many are de facto agnostics or atheists in the sense they do not believe in God, the soul, and/or the afterlife. What branches of Judaism are the Jewish Supreme Court Judges?
The same can be said for a lot of “Christians”.
Felix Frankfurter, maybe?
That’s not exactly a proclamation of atheism, but pretty close.
Because the Supreme Court is God!
DUH!
OK, but why aren’t there more singing transvestite bisexual mad scientists on the SCOTUS?
Isn’t three enough?
Elena Kagan disagrees. By about 4 months.
Spam reported.
D’oh! Good catch.
It’s still 2009 in my head.
I doubt that a president would nominate someone who was openly hostile toward religion in general or toward any of America’s major religions in particular. Which would rule out some, but by no means all, vocally open atheists.
I’d like to see it happen, if only to push the question of religion and government into a more open light.
“You can’t appoint him/her! They’re an atheist! They don’t believe in God!”
“Why does that matter for a public service position?”
It’s tougher to force that discussion with an election, since people can vote or not vote for someone for any reason they please, but an appointed position would be stickier. I’d really like to see the contortions the talking heads make in order to justify why it matters.
Yeah, because Atheists are hostile to religion. Not the people who think that if you don’t follow their religion you are going to burn in hell for eternity, they aren’t hostile to any of the major religions - as long as it’s their own. Christians are never hostile to Jews and Muslims, and Muslims aren’t hostile to Christians and Jews, and Jews don’t think that God is theirs exclusively as the chosen people. Nope, it’s the Atheists that are hostile to religion.
ETA: Because not believing in something is the same as being hostile. That’s why there is all the hostility towards Santa Clause and the Loch Ness Monster.
This is the most nonsensical thing I read today, and I read one of Orly Taitz’ pleadings this morning.
Do we even know that, just to pick a couple of examples, Justice Ginsburg goes to temple, or Justice Kennedy to Mass? For that matter, did Justice Stevens go to services? Identifying oneself consistently with one’s ethnicity or the faith in which one was raised does not necessarily mean one is a believer.
That’s probably why he said “some, but not all.”
And not going to religious services is not necessarily an indication of a lack of belief.
And you’d be wrong. I am not a hundred feet away from a pair of believers who firmly support abortion rights.
Appointed vs elected is key. There are quite possibly atheist members of Congress, but I’d expect darned few, especially within the last 20 years when religion and politics seem to have become more entwined. Can anyone point to a recent Senator or Congressman who has openly declared to be an atheist?
And, more importantly, of the role of judges.
I’m a Christian, and I support abortion rights. I think abortion is a ‘Bad Thing’, and I wish that no woman would ever choose to have one, but I don’t think that the government should take that choice away from her.

Appointed vs elected is key. There are quite possibly atheist members of Congress, but I’d expect darned few, especially within the last 20 years when religion and politics seem to have become more entwined. Can anyone point to a recent Senator or Congressman who has openly declared to be an atheist?
Pete Stark (D-CA) is generally referred to as the first and only atheist Congressman. Senator Ted Kaufman (D-DE) often refers to himself as a humanist, but is listed as a Roman Catholic.