I should think the court needs an non denominational Christian or two to be more representative of both where the country is, and where it is going.  So Protestants it needs, but not of the mainline variety…..

But justice is blind and objective…

I’m not sure how this article by Robert Barnes qualifies as news, but I welcome it since it’s informative and reasonably balanced.  Alas, many Americans are woefully ignorant about the Supreme Court and its current members, despite the immense power of the high court.

I wish this piece had gone into a little more detail about eh nine justices and what can be known about their religious beliefs and practices, especially the latter, which is more publicly observable. 

Maybe someone needs to do an updated version of Bob Woodward’s valuable analysis of that lofty bench, The Brethren.  That thick book (over 500 pages) covered the court during the period from 1969 to 1975 and came out in 1979.  I think we’re overdue for a sequel.

David Handy+

David, #3, I highly recommend Jan Crawford’s book _Supreme Conflict: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Control of the United States Supreme Court_ (published as Jan Crawford Greenburg). 

If you are really interested in this subject, I would recommend Bernard Schwartz’s Superchief (or the more popular version of this book, Inside the Warren Court, 1953-69 with co-author Stephan Lesher) and his book The Ascent of Pragmatism: The Burger Court in Action. 

There are other books out there by Edward Lazarus, David Savage   Jeffrey Toobin,  Jeffrey Rosen, and Peter H. Irons, (all lean slightly to decidedly to the left on the political spectrum) but Jan Crawford’s is the best on the recent court.

For a president who was already willing to attack the High Court in his state of the union address, he’ll probably, in his lovable, apologetic fashion, appoint a muslim.  Not that there’s anything wrong with that.  Problem is, he’ll have to be a socialist too!
Barry’s a one-term president and I think he knows it.  So his moves in these kind of situations will be “bold” to say the least.  (scare quotes intentional)

#5, my guess would be the nominees will be Pamela S. Karlan, a professor of law at Stanford Law School.  She will be noteworthy as the first lesbian appointee.  Before you get ‘Wee-Weed Up’ over this, you should note that she has been endorsed in the past by Evangelical law professor, William Stuntz.  See here:  http://www.law.upenn.edu/blogs/dskeel/archives/2009/05/pam_karlan_and_souters_seat—s.html

#6, ...“endorsed in the past by Evangelical law professor, William Stuntz”.  I don’t know the man, but without going to all the trouble to read up on him, can I assume that this evangelical person is also about as far-left politically as they come….along with Ms. Karlan?
Because above all things like sexual orientation, religion,  even practical experience and education, Barry will choose the socialist.  That is his right as president and his agenda for this country.  Nothing less.

I would be very surprised if the President chose a Socialist, No. 7.  Socialism has never really gained traction as a political force in this country.  It is an almost negligible movement.  Moreover, it is almost unheard of that a President chooses Supreme Court nominees who do not have at least some semblance of connection to the President’s own political party.  My guess is that he will choose a Democrat.

#7 asks “‘...William Stuntz’.  I don’t know the man, but without going to all the trouble to read up on him, can I assume that this evangelical person is also about as far-left politically as they come[?]”

You can assume so, but you would be wrong.  He is not easily pegged - if you were a reader of the conservative blog, Power Line, you would have read a nice note about him - Mr. Stuntz is 52 and is not expected to see next Christmas.  The entry is titled ” “You will call, I will answer,”  and may be found here: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/03/025729.php - Mr. Stuntz

Back in 2004, he wrote a very powerful essay (Faculty Clubs and Church Pews) which begins:

The past few months have seen a lot of talk about red and blue America, mostly by people on one side of the partisan divide who find the other side a mystery.

It isn’t a mystery to me, because I live on both sides. For the past twenty years, I’ve belonged to evangelical Protestant churches, the kind where George W. Bush rolled up huge majorities. And for the past eighteen years, I’ve worked in secular universities where one can hardly believe that Bush voters exist. Evangelical churches are red America at its reddest. And universities, especially the ones in New England (where I work now), are as blue as the bluest sky.

The full essay is here:  http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=112904A

Mr. Stunz is not a Douglas Kmeic.

#8….there are democrats and then there are democrats like Obama.  Sotomayor is one of these, but he was only testing the waters with her.  The religion of the next one, to get back on topic here, will not matter, if she even claims one. The object will be to move the pointer to the left in a big way.  Not a little push like Sotomayor, but a big shove that will assure the Obama agenda for the country long after his one and only term.  But hey, that’s how it works when one party controls the other two branches.  The Republicans had their turn.  All I’m really saying here, in answer to the original question in the article, is that religion no longer matters.  I mean look, Teddy Kennedy claimed to be Catholic!

Breyer was raised in a Jewish household in San Francisco, but he was married in an Anglican ceremony and has a daughter who is an Episcopal priest.

Wow, how weird.  I had never heard of that. 

Another interesting example of husbands letting their wives do the religion in the house.

#11 Who would be surprised? This says nothing about anyone’s beliefs.