| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Old Man Retires | ||||
| ||||
The discussion over Obama’s Supreme Court nominee is starting to catch fire.
As Jon Stewart noted last night (at around 5:05 in the video), and commenter “BernieO,” who happens to be Roman Catholic also noted, there seems to be no serious concern about the Supreme Court’s religious balance, except on “The Daily Show.”
I wonder how many people realize that six of the Supremes are Catholic, two Jewish and one – Stevens – is Protestant. If Kagan gets the nod there will be no Protestants on the court. In a nation obsessed with religion I find it strange that I have heard no one, except John Stewart, point this out. I am Irish Catholic but it bothers me that two thirds of the court is Catholic in a majority Protestant country. Religious upbringing has a profound influence on your world view, even if you are no longer a believer. The court should reflect the country’s makeup. – TM.com reader “BernieO”
Today, Glenn Greenwald makes his case against Elena Kagan, who is also Catholic. The consensus being that Kagan’s appointment will make the court more conservative. I agree.
Remembering history and when John F. Kennedy had to prove his independence from Rome in order to be considered a viable presidential candidate, our ultra religious nation has gone a long way from JFK.
I don’t know many Catholics of the age of the current justices who aren’t informed and swayed by their Catholicism, as are most older Americans of faith. To be fair to frontrunner, Ms. Kagan, she seems firmly committed to women’s rights, as well as gay rights through changing DADT, both of which are directly in defiance of the Vatican.
Still, in a diverse religious nation as ours, shouldn’t protestants also be represented?
In today’s America, when thinking about a mostly Catholic Supreme Court, it presents a problem.
I could care less if the Supreme Court is Catholic.
As for Protestant representation….Nazarene, Southern Baptist, Church of God, Methodist, ??????? Quite a diverse group within Protestants, so the right or left side?
I agree with you on this one, Taylor. Normally, it wouldn’t make a difference to me, but after seeing Nancy Pelosi with the bishops, Stupak, etc. I agree diversity in religion would be an asset to the Supreme Court, also race and gender diversity.
Hey Lynnette.
The whole point is having diversity in as many spheres as possible.
I also think when taking about organized religion and SCOTUS that there is no “right v left” corallary, including for Pres. Obama, who isn’t about to appoint a religious leftie, though I actually have no clue what that actually means. Most mainstream religions, which is where any SCOTUS nominee would land in spiritual philosophy it’s very sagfe to say, would land on the conservative meter.
How about someone who has not spent their lives in ivory towers? It does not matter what any of us think Obama will appoint someone who makes the conservatives happy and they will still pitch a fit.
Kagan does have some good bonifieds but the conservatives love her that makes me think she will be another corporation friendly judge.
Another excellent consideration, which is why I prefer a politician who has dealt with real struggles of middle class Americans. Like Granholm, though she’s not on anyone’s list.
Kagan’s primary issue is executive privilege, ala Bush-
Cheney domestic “war on terror” powers, which I mentioned the other day.
But as you offer, LL, IF hcr ends up in front of SCOTUS, corporate deference will matter, as will the commerce clause.
I believe Kagan is Jewish, not Catholic.
She is mostly definitely Jewish. At least she was born to Jewish parents. Perhaps she converted to Catholicism and nobody knows it except Ms. Marsh? Peace
I think you’re right. I just Googled her and everything I see says she is Jewish. I don’t see anything about her being Catholic.
The better question should be is why there are no atheists, buddhists, Pagan or many of the other faiths that make up the fabric of this nation on the SC. That’s more important to me than yet another representative of the Abrahamic Faiths.
Aha!
This leads us to one of the biggest challenges of all in modern US politics today: the importance of religion in politics, governing, and our daily lives.
The scurge of Falwell’s “moral majority,” along with Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum, both of which rose during Reagan, though they began building after Roe.
This leads us to one of the biggest challenges of all in modern US politics today: the importance of religion in politics, governing.
The scurge of Falwell’s “moral majority,” along with Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum, both of which rose during Reagan, though they began building after Roe is never going to leave us unless the independent movement finds a leader.
Dems and Rep are both polluted philosophically; the politicians who represent both parties beholden to too many things beyond what’s good for we the people.
“We detest most that which we recognize in ourselves.” That’s really what’s at work here. How many times did you all cry, simper,and moan about Obama not having the cojones to ramrod his legislative agenda through? That if Congress would not yield to his will, he should break it?!?!
I hate to be the one to inform you, but that argument is straight out of the “unitary executive” playbook. And Kagan is taking criticism for advocating that approach. In the WJC iteration, however, not the Bush-Cheney one. That part of the criticism — that Kagan would unleash a raft of civil liberties deprivations sufficient to indulge the most sordid of Cheney’s dreams — is pure hyberbole and completely unsubstantiated. In other words, par for the course re: Greenwald.
BTW, does the irony not strike you that Stevens, now so lauded by progressives, was appointed by a Republican (Ford)? His views evolved; they did not remain static. That is the hallmark of an open-minded judge. Given the example of the very person who is to be replaced, the argument that Obama should appoint a Justice with a fixed ideological compass is completely devoid of sense.
Go Kagan.
Generally I agree with you ogenec, but not on Kagan. I believe that she has a fixed ideological compass when it comes to the expansion of presidential powers. Especially in a time of war. That, I think, is why Obama finds her so attractive. Peace
On what do you base that belief? I don’t think there is anything in her writings to support that charge. Greenwald is just making stuff up, as is his wont.
During her confirmation to become Solicitor General Kagan said “that someone suspected of helping to *finance* al Qaeda should be subject to battlefield law—indefinite detention without trial—even if (they) were captured in a place like the Philippines rather than a physical battle zone.” That view would vastly expand executive power and could play real havoc with our civil liberties in general. Peace
Even if I grant you the premise of your argument, the conclusion does not follow. Reasonable minds can differ as to whether a financier of terror is engaged in a “war,” sufficient to hold him as an enemy combatant. In my view, the answer is yes. But I can understand arguments to the contrary.
But it’s not correct to say that Kagan’s view, even if wrong, plays havoc with “our civil liberties in general.” Our civil liberties are just that — ours. Foreign citizens cannot avail themselves of our constitutional protections, except in limited situations, such as where they are on U.S. soil. Hence the decision in Boumedienne (sp?), where Kennedy held that because we controlled Gitmo to such an extraordinary degree, it was effectively U.S. soil. But prisoners at Bagram have no such rights, even if their deprivations are as significant as those of Gitmo detainees.
We can debate the extent of rights to which enemy combatants should be entitled. But constitutonal jurisprudence has long drawn a line between our rights and theirs. Kagan should not be villified because she acknowledges and respects that line. As to your point about executive autority, the prosecution of a war effort is reserved to the President under the Constitution. That’s just a fact, and we shouldn’t let Bush’s excesses make this President — or any other — hesitant to use the full weight of his authority. Again, the question really devolves to one’s definition of “war,” which reasonable people can disagree about.
Hey ogenec~
I’m not surprised you favor Kagan.You are one of my favorite Blue Dogs
Not being a student of the Supreme Court I probably should not comment too much here but I do have an argument for you. Yes, Stevens was appointed by Ford and I am sure he has evolved as you say. But don’t forget that Ford would be run out of the modern Republican Party for being a RINO and probably so too would Sandra Day O’Connor. I am about as liberal as they come but I would be happy if our Court had moderates from the old mold of Ford’s day.
Hey LL, it’s good to see you. I’m not a Blue Dog. I just don’t believe that judges should be appointed based on an adherence to some set of ideological beliefs. Sorry. There is a fundamental difference between judging and legislating. That difference has been subverted in recent times, but there is no reason to continue that practice.
Kagan would make an excellent judge, as would any number of other people, I believe. I’m on record as being in the Hillary camp for SCOTUS, and I wish she and Obama had seriously considered it. I’m really hard-pressed to think of anyone better. But since she will not do it, I’ll take Kagan.
Well, as far as “ramrodding” legislation through, he certainly has done that for insurance and drug companies, I’ll give him that.
Ms Kagan has not changed in over 10 years on her penchant for executive privilege and expansion, something that Pres. Obama is as fond of as George W. Bush. But I’m by no means as against Kagan as Glenn.
And no one can give a decent explanation why Pres. Obama hung Dawn Johnson out to dry.
Hey, but the Obama choir wails on…
Well, as far as “ramrodding” legislation through, he certainly has done that for insurance and drug companies, I’ll give him that.
You got that right!
No wailing, just straight-up, full-throated singing, Donny Hathaway style!!! HCR? Check. Student loan reform? Check. SALT treaty? Check. Nuclear non-proliferation? Check. Sanctions on Iran (with China cosigning)? Check. Deficit reduction? Check. Repayment of TARP funds? Check. Economy trending back up? Check.
The man is BALLIN’!!! Just call him the Comeback, ahem, Brother. You know, since he’s officially black now.
heh-heh… I like me some Donny Hathaway, so I’ll be sure to remember that next time I hear the sounds.
Kagan really doesn’t sound that great and I’m sure there’s better but if she’s the path of least resistance I’m sure it’s the one he’ll take. Never have i seen anyone as wimpish as he is. It’s absolutely amazing.
I would like to see religion play no factor at all in choosing Judges for the court. I would like to see it beat back to the place the founders intended.A non believer would be great.It is not a good thing that Catholics are over represented any more than it would be if Southern Baptists were over represented.