I don't care what religion Supreme Court justices follow

I for one would be happy to see the number of "Catholic" justices diminish. If these theocons are what passes for Catholic in the eyes of Presidents, then we need no more Catholics --- in perpetuity!

The only meaningful notion is that if you follow a certain set of values I will not accept your verdict, period. I do have that ability to say NO!!!

How are those committed Republicans Catholic when they insist on voting consistently for making the death penalty easier to apply, as if it were not a cruel and unusual punishment now rejected entirely by the entire civilized world, even upon the very day and hour His Holiness munches birthday cake in the Rose Garden, even after the head of the Pontifical Commission on Justice and Peace declared the death penalty homicide?

One cannot be both Republican and Catholic; hating the one and loving the other.

One cannot serve both God and mammon.

"Our task as we move down this road will be to do so carefully and respectfully."

This reality is quite a responsibility. We are living in transitional times (I believe for a purpose). We are indeed called to live them according to our core values--folowing the love God has for all his children, including athiests.

Kuddos for you Bill Tammeus!!!!
You said it all so brilliantly.

Well said Bill!

Against some of the Catholic zealots who post on this site ("We as Catholics are better in God's eyes than others"), assured, correctly, that most bishops agree with them, the author asserts what most people in the first world belive: that one's religion, re law and most else, including ethics, is irrelevant. For the most part, traditional religion is an ethnocentic tribal relic in an increasingly globalized world. Jesus, who ministered to Roman pagans and Samaritan heretics, said that the kingdom was within -- not in a church. One encounters God by going deeply within the self, not by creedal ideological nonsense.

Catholicism and Judaism are both big tents with enormous diversity — not unlike the diversity among Protestants.     As the saying goes:   "...here comes everyone".     It is no longer an easy matter to "peg" an individual merely based upon religious affiliation.     Only die-hard religious ideologues would consider that to be a bad thing.
.
This diversity is in part,   due to a predominately literate society with rapid electronic information access.     Continual information input requires additional critical thinking and reasoning...   hopefully,   at least.
.
I'm less concerned about someone's religious affiliation than in their ability to listen attentively to those of opposing views without resorting to personal attacks or filtering what they hear through narrow ideological ears.     For that reason,   it is far more worrisome that the process of selecting justices has become so politically polarized and often focuses on specific partisan,   ideological hot-button issues.     Questions posed by senators are disturbingly predictable,   based on political party ideology,   pandering to the most extreme elements of a party base.
.
Justice is supposed to be "blind" — which implies using "ears" to hear the merits of each individual case based on law and not on the preconceived personal position of the justice hearing the case.     Questions should be more broadly concerned with the nominee's knowledge of the law and their broad-view philosophy of interpreting and applying the law generically,   rather than single-issue specifics of hypothetical situations.     Even specific previous judicial decisions do not lend themselves to congressional inquiry because those decisions are often based on hundreds of pages of complex legal briefs and individual testimony.     Trying to 'proof-text' such cases often leads to faulty 'aha' conclusions by partisan politicians.
.
The extreme political 'right' decries "activist judges" but yet they seek them out for confirmation just as eagerly as anyone on the political 'left' — just for very different reasons.     Ideologues of any stripe have no genuine interest in justice or the law.     Their overriding interest is in imposing their ideological will upon everyone else by any possible means.     That does not bode well for our representative form of democracy,   or for civility in political discourse.

Yes, Bill, thank you for your words and perspective.

Many Americans, including many Catholics, would like to believe that their justices do have a belief system and ethical position that flow from the worldview which characterizes their whole life.

But we live in a society that is diverse and religiously pluralistic. In fact, as slow as the progress might be, we have achieved a way to live together and at least not destroyed the nation through religious wars.

There is a sense of pride, that groups that have been much oppressed and discriminated against have "made it" to the highest court in the land: Catholics, Jews, African Americans, women and now an Hispanic . But it is a reasonable interpretation of the Constitution that must hold us together.

As for the "Catholic" members of the current Supreme Court, I see no consistent influence of Catholic beliefs or social ethics, guiding them. It seems to me that what is consistent in their rulings is an attachment to a very conservative political philosophy. I don't know any of them personally. However, from a distance, I suspect this political philosophy is much more salient and powerful as determinants of their rulings than their "Catholicism."

The Catholic community of the past came from immigrant stock and poverty or at best, working-class status. As we (using an "editorial "we") have moved into the college-educated, middle and upper middle classes, we have found the Republican Party to be more amenable to our position in life. For many Catholics these days their economic/political beliefs trump their religious beliefs. However our greatest hope should be that as our Hispanic immigrant brothers and sisters, many of whom are poor and experience oppression, arrive here they will become the dominant force in U.S. Catholicism and return us to our teachings about social justice, but not necessarily the Democratic Party.

I guess I'm not surprised at the anti-Catholic comments. But if you check other Christian religions, I believe some of the same sins exist and maybe to a large degree. The Catholic Church is not a polical party. Some Republicans are tying their party to the church but they are wrong. The Universal (Catholic) Church welcomes all peoples regardless of their political affileation. Do Catholics committ sins? Yes! Do Protestants committ sins? Yes! Do people of other religions committ sins? Yes! Why? Because they are just human.

Hi, Bill! Thank you for this article. I just graduated from Humboldt State University - Arcata, with a major in Economics and minor in Political Science. Have also done indepth studies with Biblical scholars and Spiritual Theology. For my capstone experience in Political Science I did an indepth research paper on how religion influences the Supreme Court, before Justice Sotomayor came in. The case was about a prisoner on the Texas death row - is it legal to retire his medication to kill him, causing insanity on account of his mental illness diagnosis? The opinion against - the majority was lead by one Catholic; the other four Catholics were in the losing opinion. Conclusion was that religion was not a factor. Thanks for discussing this matter.

As for having so many Catholics on the Supreme Court, I question their latest vote which allows big money to infiltrate the political arena to influence Congess. This is not my idea of Catholic Social Justice. From where are they coming?

Bill; I'm afraid I cant agree with you.
I have seen so much influence in the peruasion of the faith I belong to put one off having any persuasion at all.
My sadness is I chose my spiritual home bringing my family with me.
We have many Catholic NGO's and other associations linked to Human Rights and Children's rights in Australia and not one of them stood up and publicly disassociated themselves from the abuse perpetrated against children and vulnerable adults.
Not to mention the illigitimate children of priests with no roots, even when the decent father (fr) asks for a rescript of his vows to protect the child he has brought into the world and the mother.
Refused to protect the Church and the Priesthood.
They are all answerable to God yes, but the politics of their belief is what they adhere to at the end of the day.
The mandatory reporting of abuse in the confessional is just one example.

I am not into religion as a matter of who is chosen to the Supreme Court. A am for a liberal/middle of the road thinker--just & unbiased-- for Supreme Court Justice. My feeling is that religion has gotten too much into government, eg. fundamentalism--evolutionists. The separation of Church and state was a great call by our founding fathers. (I can't imagine removing Jefferson from history textbooks in favor of Reaganism). I believe we are experiencing what the forefathers foresaw with religion. Remember: our nation was formed for religious freedom. I think our forefathers sought for equality--not for one religious thought to dominate.
Unfortnately, I believe the religious right are fighting to take over evrything in the name of Christ. If it takes Catholics to battle them down--so be it. But, as we know, there are what we call fundalmentalist Catholics, who are on the fringes of reality. I sure wouldn't want one of those over a Protestant middle road justice.
Politics today is the most complicated I have seen and also the scariest!

Elder Tammeus;
Your idea is great in theory, but this is the real world. I live in the Greater Boston Massachuetts Area. I have seen Bernard Law (the man who had to flee the country to avoid prosecution) RULE the state Legislature. The polls could show, say, 80% of the citizens of Massachusetts could be in favor of an item - but if it did not comply with Catholic church doctrine he'd work the Catholic legislators 'till Catholic doctrine was FORCED onto all the citizens. I am an ex-Catholic. I felt like you do - until I witnessed CAtholic politicians 'kneel down' and OBEY the Catholic Cardinal. THIS SCARES ME TO NO END! Now I will NEVER vote for a Catholic candidate. I have seen Catholic political officials represent the desires of the Vatican and ignore those that put them in office.
Just recently the state of Connecticut introduced a bill to eliminate the statute of limitation of child sexual molestation. The first, and only one, to show up, in person, and twist the legislators arms was the Bishop!!!!!! It was Catholic legislators he was harassing. His reasoning; it'll cost the diocese too much in lawsuits regarding priests raping and sodomizing innocent children. This is vile and disgusting!
Consequently I will never vote for another Catholic for as long as I live. I do not want the morally bankrupt Vatican deciding whay my secular laws should be.
As I said the real world demonstrates that your opinion is wrong and dangerous.