❤️ Thank you Roland! To add a little substance to my list, I found these points on target:
“Why Catholic Supreme Court Justices are so comfortable with constitutional originalism
It is no coincidence that a strong leaning toward originalism
and textualism is espoused by the most conservative Catholic Supreme Court Justices.
❤️ Thank you Roland! To add a little substance to my list, I found these points on target:
“Why Catholic Supreme Court Justices are so comfortable with constitutional originalism
It is no coincidence that a strong leaning toward originalism
and textualism is espoused by the most conservative Catholic Supreme Court Justices.
To date, this applies especially to Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, following in the footsteps of Judge Barrett’s “mentor,” Anthony Scalia.
In this way, they achieve a curious result: Catholic Supreme Court justices treat the U.S. Constitution – a temporal document composed by human beings in all their wisdom as well as in all their human faults – as if it were some mystical holy scripture, divinely inspired.
If nothing else, going the next step and vesting the “correct” reading of the U.S. Constitution in a strict originalist frame, at best betrays an overwrought adherence to authority.
As with all religions, Roman Catholicism’s ecumenical and fundamentalist branches intensify belief in the Church’s current structures.
The apparently fervent participation of Judge Barrett in such a group as “People of Praise” is indeed relevant to her service as a justice.
In addition, recent scandals associated with that group’s schools, on which Justice Barrett served as a board member after the abuse was well documented, show how ideology can overshadow reason.
U.S. Republicans’ and Catholics’ very similar structures
The contemporary Republican Party resembles the male-dominated and elite-driven structure of the Roman Catholic Church.
The party eschews participatory democracy and does not trust participation by common people in any significant manner.
It excels in luring them with mellifluous promises as well as ideologies of security (particularly against change), but it does not encourage their independent thought.
Unsurprisingly then, what the Republican Party expects from their nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court is basically to follow authority and party dictates.
Just follow the party dictates
More directly put, this translates into voting for the outcomes the Republicans need politically from their nominees to the court.
For instance, in recent months, SCOTUS has used the shadow docket on cases about Covid restrictions on religious groups, the Trump Administration’s “remain in Mexico” policy and the emergency ban on evictions.
Other more mainstream issues are indeed litmus tests for Republican appointed justices, including campaign finance, the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms, and – quite salient these days – voting rights.
The practices of Protestantism
The basic reason why Republicans evidently don’t want to rely any longer on justices of protestant faith lies in the structure of Protestantism.
In contrast to Roman Catholicism, it has far more democratically governing bodies. From the earliest days of the Reformation onward, they are at least conceptually based on a bottom-up approach.
Indeed, the Protestant denominational structures had at least an indirect influence on the structure of the U.S.’s political governing bodies themselves.
Though Protestant denominations were for centuries also male-dominated, they admitted women both to the clergy and to governing bodies many decades ago.
Further, Protestant religious practice rests on the idea of the “priesthood of all believers,” that is, each person must exercise their independent conscience and make their own decisions.
This is, in many ways, a heavier burden than having one’s opinions and decisions handed down from above. In the context of the U.S. Supreme Court, that burden is more likely to guarantee a more independent judicial thought process.
Why one’s personal religion and service as a justice are deeply intertwined
For all these reasons, questions about how a nominee thinks judicially do indeed relate to their religious preferences and practices.
For that same reason, their past decisions at lower courts should be read for evidence of religious thinking and what they might mean to a democratic society.
Effectively undercutting the separation of church and state
The separation of church and state has been a governing concept in the United States since its founding. The Establishment Clause is the first provision in the Bill of Rights, assuring that Congress “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”
Even having a two-thirds Catholic majority on the U.S. Supreme Court does not by itself constitute Congress establishing a religion.
“…the influence such a majority can attain….” Like any other extremely conservative religious branch, they are True (unquestioning) Believers. The Church in the US has moved ever rightward as bishops fight to protect their exalted status and against Pope Francis’s message of love and mercy.
While it is indeed noticeable that the reactionary majority on the Stench Court are ultra right wing Catholics, it’s a very big step from there to blame Catholicism in general for their right wing, and an even bigger one to exempt Protestants from their own right wing when “evangelical” has become so closely associated with ultra right politics. There are abundant counter examples in both groups. More importantly, reasoning according to group membership has hazards. I’m old enough to remember when John F Kennedy was running for President, and the papers discussed whether a Catholic President would be taking orders from the Pope.
<heart> Thank you, Joan. The kind of attitude you mention has been increasing here, and it unsettles me. It's good to see it called out, or at least named when it occurs. Too much out in the world.
I remember that media fear of papal control of JFK, too, back in 1960, when my Catholic parents were liberal Democrats, and were appalled by that assumption. Then, in the late 60's, "The Church" started sponsoring anti-abortion marches and the evangelical movement. Prophecy come true?
Let us not forget the Plowshares eight (the Berrigans, et.al.), Dorothy Day, Peter Mauren and the Catholic Worker (social justice mouthpiece), Thomas Merton, and other 20th century Catholics.
❤️ Thank you Roland! To add a little substance to my list, I found these points on target:
“Why Catholic Supreme Court Justices are so comfortable with constitutional originalism
It is no coincidence that a strong leaning toward originalism
and textualism is espoused by the most conservative Catholic Supreme Court Justices.
To date, this applies especially to Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, following in the footsteps of Judge Barrett’s “mentor,” Anthony Scalia.
In this way, they achieve a curious result: Catholic Supreme Court justices treat the U.S. Constitution – a temporal document composed by human beings in all their wisdom as well as in all their human faults – as if it were some mystical holy scripture, divinely inspired.
If nothing else, going the next step and vesting the “correct” reading of the U.S. Constitution in a strict originalist frame, at best betrays an overwrought adherence to authority.
As with all religions, Roman Catholicism’s ecumenical and fundamentalist branches intensify belief in the Church’s current structures.
The apparently fervent participation of Judge Barrett in such a group as “People of Praise” is indeed relevant to her service as a justice.
In addition, recent scandals associated with that group’s schools, on which Justice Barrett served as a board member after the abuse was well documented, show how ideology can overshadow reason.
U.S. Republicans’ and Catholics’ very similar structures
The contemporary Republican Party resembles the male-dominated and elite-driven structure of the Roman Catholic Church.
The party eschews participatory democracy and does not trust participation by common people in any significant manner.
It excels in luring them with mellifluous promises as well as ideologies of security (particularly against change), but it does not encourage their independent thought.
Unsurprisingly then, what the Republican Party expects from their nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court is basically to follow authority and party dictates.
Just follow the party dictates
More directly put, this translates into voting for the outcomes the Republicans need politically from their nominees to the court.
For instance, in recent months, SCOTUS has used the shadow docket on cases about Covid restrictions on religious groups, the Trump Administration’s “remain in Mexico” policy and the emergency ban on evictions.
Other more mainstream issues are indeed litmus tests for Republican appointed justices, including campaign finance, the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms, and – quite salient these days – voting rights.
The practices of Protestantism
The basic reason why Republicans evidently don’t want to rely any longer on justices of protestant faith lies in the structure of Protestantism.
In contrast to Roman Catholicism, it has far more democratically governing bodies. From the earliest days of the Reformation onward, they are at least conceptually based on a bottom-up approach.
Indeed, the Protestant denominational structures had at least an indirect influence on the structure of the U.S.’s political governing bodies themselves.
Though Protestant denominations were for centuries also male-dominated, they admitted women both to the clergy and to governing bodies many decades ago.
Further, Protestant religious practice rests on the idea of the “priesthood of all believers,” that is, each person must exercise their independent conscience and make their own decisions.
This is, in many ways, a heavier burden than having one’s opinions and decisions handed down from above. In the context of the U.S. Supreme Court, that burden is more likely to guarantee a more independent judicial thought process.
Why one’s personal religion and service as a justice are deeply intertwined
For all these reasons, questions about how a nominee thinks judicially do indeed relate to their religious preferences and practices.
For that same reason, their past decisions at lower courts should be read for evidence of religious thinking and what they might mean to a democratic society.
Effectively undercutting the separation of church and state
The separation of church and state has been a governing concept in the United States since its founding. The Establishment Clause is the first provision in the Bill of Rights, assuring that Congress “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”
Even having a two-thirds Catholic majority on the U.S. Supreme Court does not by itself constitute Congress establishing a religion.
However, the influence that such a majority can attain serving on the Supreme Court – an overly powerful body in the U.S. system of governance – can be exercised in a subtle, at least somewhat veiled but nevertheless very effective manner.” https://www.theglobalist.com/the-u-s-supreme-court-now-a-roman-catholic-institution/
Helpful to have such discussions publicly.
“…the influence such a majority can attain….” Like any other extremely conservative religious branch, they are True (unquestioning) Believers. The Church in the US has moved ever rightward as bishops fight to protect their exalted status and against Pope Francis’s message of love and mercy.
Pope Francis is the real thing.
He totally is.
While it is indeed noticeable that the reactionary majority on the Stench Court are ultra right wing Catholics, it’s a very big step from there to blame Catholicism in general for their right wing, and an even bigger one to exempt Protestants from their own right wing when “evangelical” has become so closely associated with ultra right politics. There are abundant counter examples in both groups. More importantly, reasoning according to group membership has hazards. I’m old enough to remember when John F Kennedy was running for President, and the papers discussed whether a Catholic President would be taking orders from the Pope.
<heart> Thank you, Joan. The kind of attitude you mention has been increasing here, and it unsettles me. It's good to see it called out, or at least named when it occurs. Too much out in the world.
Trying to find Greg Olear’s research piece on the Leonard Leo project to get Christians on the bench, maybe the link is in this article
Not just any Christians - only far right ones who will do anything to impose their views.
I remember that media fear of papal control of JFK, too, back in 1960, when my Catholic parents were liberal Democrats, and were appalled by that assumption. Then, in the late 60's, "The Church" started sponsoring anti-abortion marches and the evangelical movement. Prophecy come true?
And now it would be an improvement if the right wing justices and bishops would follow Pope Francis!
Pope St. Francis!
Let us not forget the Plowshares eight (the Berrigans, et.al.), Dorothy Day, Peter Mauren and the Catholic Worker (social justice mouthpiece), Thomas Merton, and other 20th century Catholics.
Absolutely
😯