
What you may not know, however, is that John Paul Stevens was the lone Protestant on the bench. If Kagan is confirmed, you will have the following bench:
- Samuel Alito - Roman Catholic
- Anthony Kennedy - Roman Catholic
- John Roberts - Roman Catholic
- Antonin Scalia - Roman Catholic
- Sonia Sotomayor - Roman Catholic
- Clarence Thomas - Roman Catholic
- Stephen Breyer - Jewish
- Ruth Bader Ginsburg - Jewish
- Elena Kagan - Jewish
Two things come to mind:
FIRST ... I don't know how many Americans who profess faith in Christ would call themselves Protestant, or non-Roman Catholic,* but I'm willing to bet it's greater than 0% of the population. In other words, if you're looking for diversity, a very significant percentage of the American people have no representation on the Court.
SECOND ... And this is really more of a Roman Catholic question with regard to the abortion issue ... If, and I know it is, the Roman Catholic Church is unequivocally pro-life (i.e., anti-abortion), even to the point of threatening ex-communication and/or denial of the Eucharist to politicians who vote pro-choice, why aren't pro-choice advocates concerned about a 2/3 majority on the Court whose religion's litmus test is unabashedly pro-life?
Similarly, is there, will there be, or should there be, from a papal standpoint, significant repercussions for a Roman Catholic Court that did/does not exercise its God-ordained power to overturn Roe vs. Wade, 1973?
*I know for simplicity's sake many see professing believers in Jesus in a dichotomy of Roman Catholic or Protestant, but there is also the reality that many prefer to not trace their roots to/through Protestantism and there are those outside the realm of Christian orthodoxy (e.g., Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses) for whom the term certainly would not apply.
No comments:
Post a Comment