I see that with the nomination of Elena Kagan, the makeup of the Supreme Court of the United States would become:


Roamin' Catholics - 6
Jews - 3
Protestants - 0


Seems that "diversity" only goes so far.  Note that most of the Caths were nominated by Republican Presidents and the Jews by Democrats. (although after the Kagan nomination, O'bama will have put one Cath and one Jew on the board, further distorting the religious mix).

I would think that if somebody applied one of the various "statistical tests" to determine if there is religious discrimination in the makeup of the SCOTUS, this makeup would be a FAIL, seeing as about 51% of the USA population identifies as Protestant. (24% identify as Catholic and 1.7% identify as Jewish).

If one is going to seek "diversity" in the court makeup, might there not be a well-qualified woman who is a Protestant, or basically anything other than the hugely-overrepresented religions on the court already ?

Note... I am a Roamin' Catholic and therefore am quite well represented by an overwhelming majority on the SCOTUS, so I am not complaining that "I" have been hurt here.  But it seems that our president is not putting his money where his mouth is.

Finally... I am not a proponent of "diversity for the sake of diversity" and am all for picking the best possible candiate regardless of their race, religion, etc.  But observing the rhetoric and actions of the administration, it seems a bit odd that it would make this sort of nomination... again.

Thoughts, anybody?

http://ll-media.tmz.com/2010/05/10/0510-kevin-james.jpg

Can't say I really care if they're Catholic or Protestant.  They're still Christian either way. An atheist or a Buddhist or *gasp* a muslim, etc. would be far more interesting and "diverse"

Either way, I'm more concerned that a liberal justice is being replaced with a moderate who has a rather conservative bent.

To replace John Paul Stevens, an atheist
It's something Thomas Jefferson might have done: nominate a nonbeliever to the Supreme Court
Marc Cooper

May 4, 2010

   
As President Obama considers nominees to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, a debate bubbles as to whether religion should play a role in his choice.

This is a no-brainer. The religious views of the next justice of the high court must absolutely be a decisive factor.

Though the court without Stevens will be left with six Catholics and two Jews, the open seat should not go to either domination. Nor should it go to a Presbyterian, a Lutheran, a Methodist, a Muslim or even a Zoroastrian. If it did, that would make nine people who all have one religious principle in common: a belief in religion.

Clearly, the next person to take the bench should be an atheist.

While few sitting politicians have the political courage to name a declared nonbeliever, it is something that Thomas Jefferson (and several others among the founders) might well have done.

In an 1823 letter to John Adams, Jefferson was forthright about his views of religion, and Christianity specifically. "And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter," Jefferson wrote. "But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors."

In other words, Jefferson liked what Jesus, the man, stood for, but could definitely do without the rest of the bunk.

That's right. Bunk. There aren't a lot of us, but something like one out of six Americans calls himself a nonbeliever. Holy moly! That means we would still be underrepresented with just one justice. But those of us who refuse to subscribe to any religious hocus-pocus would be happy to take what we can get in a country where seemingly no politician, from either party, can resist the temptation of ending a speech with the empty phrase "God bless America."

It's rather staggering to consider that more than two centuries after our Constitution codified the absolute separation of church and state, we've never had a single top court justice who was an atheist. The closest we ever got were a handful of Unitarians. Close but no cigar.

Having an atheist justice, however, would not primarily be a matter of identity politics and some sort of equal representation. Rather, a nonbeliever justice would be a mighty blow in favor of the secular principles of "reason and freedom" of which Jefferson spoke.

Heaven knows we could use some more of that stuff. Religion plays far too influential a role in our political and civic life as is. I personally don't care what sort of superstition makes you sleep better at night, but I think we would all benefit if you left it behind closed doors and kept it as far away as possible from public policy. How about a policy of don't ask, don't tell?

We've got quite a way to go to get even close to the stark separationism that is constitutionally enshrined but far too often ignored. We've recently been humiliated by a spate of local school boards dominated by fundamentalist Christians, undermining the teaching of science and inching us back into the shadows of ignorance.

While the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1961 that atheists cannot be denied elected office, there are currently seven states — including Pennsylvania, Texas and Tennessee — that retain laws keeping infidels out of government. These moldy statutes are, indeed, unconstitutional, and when challenged eventually fail. But "eventually" can be a long time. In the meantime, they are used, as is currently the case with a North Carolina councilman, to force an elected official to spend outsized legal fees defending himself or herself for not believing in God.

When it comes to some Sunday soul-searching introspection, or when faced with a personal crisis that haunts your nightmares, it's your constitutional right to ask yourself, "What would Jesus do?"

When it comes to deciding who will be the ultimate arbiters and defenders of the most advanced and enlightened governing document in history, we would all be a lot better off if, instead, we asked ourselves, "What would Jefferson do?"

Marc Cooper is a contributing editor to the Nation magazine and director of USC Annenberg Digital News.

Copyright © 2010, The Los Angeles Times


http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe--cooper-20100504,0,4381869,full.story




Cat

Can't say I really care if they're Catholic or Protestant.  They're still Christian either way. An atheist or a Buddhist or *gasp* a muslim, etc. would be far more interesting and "diverse"

Either way, I'm more concerned that a liberal justice is being replaced with a moderate who has a rather conservative bent.
I thought Justice Stevens was a moderate or maybe left of center.

An atheist Justice would be nice.  I don't think that's going to happen though.

I thought Justice Stevens was a moderate or maybe left of center.


Obama picked her, so I'm sure that's how the right-wing noise machine will make it sound.  As far as I'm concerned, the right already won this battle, because he picked someone who is not very liberal at all to try and avoid a fight.  A huge mistake, since they'll make it a fight no matter who he picks.

as to why I think she's a neocon in liberal clothing

During her confirmation hearing last week, Elena Kagan, the nominee for solicitor general, said that someone suspected of helping finance Al Qaeda should be subject to battlefield law - indefinite detention without a trial - even if he were captured in a place like the Philippines rather than in a physical battle zone.

Ms. Kagan's support for an elastic interpretation of the "battlefield" amplified remarks that Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. made at his own confirmation hearing. And it dovetailed with a core Bush position. Civil liberties groups argue that people captured away from combat zones should go to prison only after trials.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/18/us/politics/18policy.html

An atheist Justice would be nice.  I don't think that's going to happen though.


Obama will NOT be nominating any self-proclaimed atheist SCOTUS.  That would be political suicide.  The pity is we live in a a secular state.  The Founders were ambivalent about religion themselves; however, they were the most educated and privileged men in the colonies.  Not to say every educated and privileged man was in favor of the Revolution.  The Virginians were less enthusiastic about revolution than the Bostonians.  It's hard for me to imagine they wouldn't have thought most people would remain Christian in the future.  About the Jews?  Will we get to them later.

Obama picked her, so I'm sure that's how the right-wing noise machine will make it sound.  As far as I'm concerned, the right already won this battle, because he picked someone who is not very liberal at all to try and avoid a fight.  A huge mistake, since they'll make it a fight no matter who he picks.

as to why I think she's a neocon in liberal clothing

During her confirmation hearing last week, Elena Kagan, the nominee for solicitor general, said that someone suspected of helping finance Al Qaeda should be subject to battlefield law - indefinite detention without a trial - even if he were captured in a place like the Philippines rather than in a physical battle zone.

Ms. Kagan's support for an elastic interpretation of the "battlefield" amplified remarks that Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. made at his own confirmation hearing. And it dovetailed with a core Bush position. Civil liberties groups argue that people captured away from combat zones should go to prison only after trials.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/18/us/politics/18policy.html


Of course those civil liberties groups do not understand how war and battles work.  Very few of the WW2 war criminals were picked up on the battlefield, and we had no problem hanging 'em high.  The terrorists count on the bumbling concepts of these groups to fly cover for their activities which are aimed at killing Americans in large numbers.  My opinion? Terrorists should be treated like any other battlefield participant... dispatched on the battlefield they have chosen, with a bullet through their heads.  Same goes for maritime hijackers.

As to Kagan being a wolf in sheep's clothing... Yeah, it's possible.  Maybe O'bama will have screwed the pooch on this nomination like Ford did when he appointed Stevens, or like Bush the Elder did with Souter.

Of course those civil liberties groups do not understand how war and battles work.  Very few of the WW2 war criminals were picked up on the battlefield, and we had no problem hanging 'em high. 

That's a loaded statement to make without a source to back it up.  I'm pretty sure most of the war criminals were captured after the war had ended.


The terrorists count on the bumbling concepts of these groups to fly cover for their activities which are aimed at killing Americans in large numbers.  My opinion? Terrorists should be treated like any other battlefield participant... dispatched on the battlefield they have chosen, with a bullet through their heads.  Same goes for maritime hijackers.


Yeah, because it sure worked great with the Branch Davidians and the Ruby Ridge wackos... terrorists weren't emboldened by that "take no prisoners" approach after that, just ask the folks who live in Oklahoma.  Let's just throw out hundreds of years of political practice because "9/11 changes everything".  We'll act tougher and the terrorists who were going to kill themselves anyways will suddenly rethink their approach.  Oops.. where is the sarcasm tag....

The WWII war criminals were tried in open court and convicted.  See "judgment at Nuremberg"  with Spencer Tracy for a dramatic rendition. 

As a Canadian, I am surprised that there are so many RCs, not any protestants amongst the 9, and to a lesser extent, surprised no atheists are there as well. Just an observation and not a criticism.

As a Canadian, I am surprised that there are so many RCs, not any protestants amongst the 9, and to a lesser extent, surprised no atheists are there as well. Just an observation and not a criticism.


I am not at all surprised there are no atheists there.  There seems to be very little tolerance towards atheists here.

In the UK going to church or not is your own business.  I really would never think to ask someone which church they belonged to.  I've been asked here several times and get funny looks when I say we don't go.  :-\\

I am not at all surprised there are no atheists there.  There seems to be very little tolerance towards atheists here.

In the UK going to church or not is your own business.  I really would never think to ask someone which church they belonged to.  I've been asked here several times and get funny looks when I say we don't go.  :-\\

In Canada, I don't think anyone has ever asked which church we go to, nor have I ever asked anyone, not my business really.

I am not at all surprised there are no atheists there.  There seems to be very little tolerance towards atheists here.

In the UK going to church or not is your own business.  I really would never think to ask someone which church they belonged to.  I've been asked here several times and get funny looks when I say we don't go.  :-\\



I had someone ask me what church I went to. I said, "I don't go to church. I'm a Pagan." She said, "We can change that." EXCUSE YOU??!!!!!  >:( >:( >:( >:(  It really pissed me off. I will tell people what my beliefs are but would never attempt to try to convert anyone and I don't want anyone attempting to try to convert me. Your beliefs (or lack of) are just that-YOURS! And my beliefs are mine.


Considering we have freedom of (and from) religion in the country, some people want to change that. You can practice whatever religion you like as long as it is the same as mine.  >:( >:( >:(



Cat

I thought Justice Stevens was a moderate or maybe left of center.



When put on the court he was considered a moderate conservative.  Now he is considered a liberal.  I don't think he changed, I think the country has.

The WWII war criminals were tried in open court and convicted.  See "judgment at Nuremberg"  with Spencer Tracy for a dramatic rendition.  


Absolutely, and those were tribunals, unaffiliated with any one civilian authority.  The Nurember court was officially known as the IMT - International Military Tribunal.


That's a loaded statement to make without a source to back it up.  I'm pretty sure most of the war criminals were captured after the war had ended.


Of course they were picked up after the war was over.  That was precisely my point.

However, I should have qualified my comment as regarding the "Nuremberg War Criminals".    Here is a rundown of the main defendants there, very few of which were picked up in battlefield action:


Rudolf Hess (life in prison) delivered himself to Scotland in 1941, not in a battlefield situation.
Wilhelm Frick (death) was not a military figure, he was civilian and was picked up after the surrender.
Walther Funk (life in prison) was civilian Minister of Economics
Herman Goering (death but he cheated the hangman via suicide) surrendered two days after the formal surrender of Germany.  Not a battlefield capture.
Alfred Jodl (death) was a signator to the unconditional surrender document , under instructions from Karl Donitz, who by then was the President of Germany.
Karl Donitz (10 years) , as Germany's head of state at the time of his capture (via surrender) was not picked up on the battlefield.
Hanz Frank (death) was a political official (Nazi party) and Governor General of Poland during the occupation.  He was indeed captured by American troops in Bavaria.
Ernst Kaltenbrunner (death) , an SS official, was captured on May 12, 1945, well after the surrender and not in a battlefield situation.
Wilhelm Keitel (death) was a senior military figure and was picked up 4 days after the official surrender, along with the rest of the Flensberg (post Hitler) government.
Joachim Von Ribbentropp (death) was foreign minister.  Arrested in June 1945 well after the surrender.
Alfred Rosenberg (death) was a Nazi political figure, picked up by US troops after the surrender.
Fritz Saukel (death) was basically in charge of scoring slave labor during the war.  I have not been able to find out under what circumstance he was captured.
Arthur Syss-Inquart (death) was a major war planner.  Picked up on a U-boat capture by the Canadian navy, so we can call that a battlefield capture.
Albert Speer (20 years) was picked up with the rest of the Flensburg Government shortly after the surrender.  But before he was arrested he spent quite some time working with the American authorities on various intel issues.  Not a battlefield capture.
Julius Streicher (death) was not a military figure.  Picked up by American soldiers in Austria about 2 weeks after the surrender (he was disquised as a painter).  Not a battlefield pickup.
Martin Bormann (death) wasn't captured at all.  He was tried in absentia and sentenced to death by hanging.  Some time around 1972 his body was found; the figure he died around 1945, before the trials even took place.


So when you look at the "name brand" WW2 war criminals, very few of them were picked up on the battlefield, and maybe half or so of them were not even military figures.  That said they were dispatched very quickly by an irregular tribunal in Nuremberg.  And quite a few of them were not members of any uniformed military force.

^ Quite a merry band you've got there!  The Nazis are the guys that make even anti-death penalty stalwarts like me take pause.  One time I said I was against the death penalty in all cases, a guy challenged:
"Even Herman Goering?"
I winced and mumbled,
"Yes...even Herman Goering"
If I had to choose a death penalty for the Nazis, I would have gone Roman on on their asses.  In ancient Rome, they'd hand you a dagger in your jail cell and say, "You know what do."  If you were still alive the next morning, the Praetorian Guard would come in and do the job for you, and you showed yourself up as chickensheeyit.  Of course, in Rome, that was a punishment for persons of prestige.  Common troublemakers just got crucified.  The reason I would have chosen self-impalement for the Nazis (no revolver, no cyanide capsule, just a dagger) is to see how many of them had the stones to do to themselves what they were only too happy to have done to others.
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/04/flame2.gif

Anyway, we have politicians like Joey Lieberman who think it would be a cool idea to strip Americans of their citizenship upon being charged with terrorism.  That's right, just put the Bill of Rights in the shredder!  (Scott Brown is supporting Lieberman because Brown is a dipsh*t.)  If Congress gets to right-wing and crazy, I want a Supreme Court that will speak up.  Jurists such as Roberts and Scalia are not ones I trust to do the job in a legislative emergency.  We need a civil libertarian for the next SCOTUS just.  We ain't gonna get one, but there you go.
:o



I had someone ask me what church I went to. I said, "I don't go to church. I'm a Pagan." She said, "We can change that."


I woulda just said, "Yeah, and when I'm interested, I'll give you a buzz."  No sense in wasting one's life force on a dope like that.

Of course those civil liberties groups do not understand how war and battles work.  Very few of the WW2 war criminals were picked up on the battlefield, and we had no problem hanging 'em high. 



The WWII war criminals were tried in open court and convicted.  See "judgment at Nuremberg"  with Spencer Tracy for a dramatic rendition. 


Most of those captured after the end of WWII were captured after the end of hostilities, and often times under false identities.  And while many were hanged, many also were either given prison sentences or released.

And they were tried by a military court martial.

As for the SCOTUS, I personally do not care what religion they are.  All I care about is that they judge the cases fairly when compared to the COnstitution.  Because for a Supreme Court Justice, that is the only "Bible" that should matter when considering cases.

However, I would likely support somebody that believes in a higher power, but it is not a major consideration for me.

.

As for the SCOTUS, I personally do not care what religion they are.  All I care about is that they judge the cases fairly when compared to the COnstitution.  Because for a Supreme Court Justice, that is the only "Bible" that should matter when considering cases.

However, I would likely support somebody that believes in a higher power, but it is not a major consideration for me.


I think we all recognize that this is the function of the court.  The problem is that the Constitution is a living document subject to interpretation, especially when it comes to the Bill of Rights, ie, what does privacy entail? How far does freedom of speech go?  Does $$$ equate with free speech? etc.

I think we all recognize that this is the function of the court.  The problem is that the Constitution is a living document subject to interpretation, especially when it comes to the Bill of Rights, ie, what does privacy entail? How far does freedom of speech go?  Does $$$ equate with free speech? etc.


You can't freeze time in 1791, but it's convenient to try if you're a white supremacist or a male chauvinist.

I think we all recognize that this is the function of the court.  The problem is that the Constitution is a living document subject to interpretation, especially when it comes to the Bill of Rights, ie, what does privacy entail? How far does freedom of speech go?  Does $$$ equate with free speech? etc.


All good questions, Don Carlos.

An additional question would be "what is the Freedom of the Press"? 

While initially I was AGAINST the SCOTUS decision that lets companies and Unions spend money supporting various political candidates, I have come to change my mind, as I see (a) The Press by its very nature is a corporate entity, (b) Political ads run by companies or unions (whether hard-copy documents or TV/radio ads) are clearly press functions.  Under this construct, I see the SCOTUS decision not as a "free speech" issue but a "freedom of the press" issue.

I do, however, believe that a ban on corporate or union monetary contributions to political campaigns can be constitutional, as there is no "freedom of unlimited donations", and to construct them as "free speech" is quite a stretch.  But I do, and FIRMLY, support the right of companies and unions to run political ads, as this is protected under the Freedom of the Press, which is at the foundation of our democracy.

Furthermore, when you consider that the major news outlets (Washington Post, New Your Times, Chicago Trib, etc... and the various TV channels) are all corporate entities, it seems unseemly to say that these corporations are "OK" to pront endorsements of candidates, but that unions and other corporations are not.