On Aug. 18, President Obama issued an executive order promoting diversity in the workplace. In that order, he set out a compelling and principled reason for diversity: "We are at our best when we draw on the talents of all parts of our society, and our greatest accomplishments are achieved when diverse perspectives are brought to bear to overcome our challenges."
He is exactly right and should apply this principled thinking to one of the most important choices a President can make. In the interest of diverse perspectives, he or his successor should seek to fill the next vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court with a Protestant. Currently, there are six Catholics and three Jews on that bench, leaving no one who shares a faith background with the 51 percent of Americans who are Protestant.
While no one would argue (I certainly don't) that Protestants are marginalized or under-privileged in the broader society, there still is something wrong with a Court that is so starkly different than the rest of the country. Faith is a difference that matters. Like race or gender, it shapes the way we think, even if it does not direct a conclusion. This is especially true in the way we think about morality, justice and punishment. Faith also plays a role in convincing us of what issues are most important -- a key process for members of a Court that has the power to pick a small number of cases to hear each year.
Many Americans are uncomfortable with the idea that religious background might be a consideration in naming Supreme Court justices because we are repelled by the idea that religion will directly shape the secular law. However, how is this different than other types of diversity? We certainly don't want Justices to decide a discrimination case based on their own race, yet we value racial diversity on the Supreme Court. Similarly, we don't expect women to vote a certain way simply because they are women, yet we still celebrate the increase in female justices over the past decade.
Morality and law are complex, and diversity works by providing divergent perspectives to a discussion between peers. This is especially true of an institution like the Supreme Court, which hears cases as a whole because of the importance of discussion between the parties and the Court and within the Court itself.
Some might argue that American society is "beyond religion," but that is shown to be untrue by the Supreme Court's docket itself. Every year, many of the cases for which Court review is sought deal with the meaning of the First Amendment's establishment and free exercise clauses, and cut to the core of the intersection between faith, law and culture. Among many other things, the Court has been given the role of evaluating which religions and religious practices are sincere (in order to evaluate tax status and particular practices which might otherwise violate the law), so these Justices even end up with the task of defining for the nation exactly what it is that religion is. Given this, it is especially odd that the majority religious group in the country is not represented on the Court.
There is no imminent court retirement pending on the Supreme Court, but the White House maintains an eye on potential candidates at all times given the possibility of death or illness on a court comprised of men and women with an average age of 65. In keeping that list, President Obama should follow the wisdom of his own words in the Aug. 18 executive order -- that "our greatest accomplishments are achieved when diverse perspectives are brought to bear to overcome our challenges.
Paul Brandeis Raushenbush: Religious Identity and the Public Square
Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States ...
Uneasy political calculus of diversity and Supreme Court - CNN
Biographies of Current Justices of the Supreme Court
Supreme Court of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Minorities have long argued that more minorities are needed on the bench because they understand miniority issues in ways that non-minorities cannot. The author is simply taking that position and tracing it onto religion. In my eyes, justice should be blind and treat all equally. Justice can't do that if qualities such as race, religion, gender or gender orientation are determinative traits.
I have no problem that there are no Protestants on the Supreme Court even though we are 51% of all Americans. But I do believe in the general idea of appropriate representation in the organs of society of the general diversity of the entire social organism. So why is it okay with me that there are no Protestants? Because for most of the history of this country the Supreme Court was 100% WASP, then until the last generation it was dominated by WASPs. It's okay that for a while it is different.
What concerns me is that the court is so tilted to the Right. I'd love to see some Dorothy Day type Catholics and some Brandeis type Jews as the next appointees despite it not adding some Protestants to make it more representative faith-wise.
to be "respresented" on the Court; the justices are not supposed to
"represent" anyone! If they are representing some person or group,
they are violating their oath.
I just finished Steyn's book about the end of this country (trying to not plug here), and it is a worthy read. Fed my worry about this country.
I love a great debate. The PC cr*p in this country (let alone the West in general) makes it quite difficult and odd.
For God's sake you can't even say you think a two parent, male female home is better for an infant! THIS is considered "hating"! Or whatever ghetto-ized word disagreement based in reality is now a days.
I love the country, but don't see much hope for it. Maybe when it splits, the SW, where I'm living, can resurect the Constitution and give it another go. And, no...not joking.
For example, two parents of opposite sex are not automatically better for a child than two same sex parents. Two ignorant, abusive, neglectful parents, one male and one female is NOT better for a child than an educated, caring, loving same sex couple.
So let me ask you not to be more "pc" but to be more aware and less prejudice of others who are not as much like you as you think they should be.
Um...yeah, we do, when an over-abundance of judges who worship any one particular religion sits on the court. They would assuredly allow their relgious beliefs to sway their decisions, to the detreiment of those of us who support a religion-neutral court.
Fortunately, every religion is schismed in the extreme, and no two members of any of them will agree.
Good judiciary is not tied to race, ethnicity, religion, gender or any other division of society. So the Catholic/Jew makeup of the current high court doesn't disturb me, though I admit it initially strikes me as a little "strange." And it wouldn't matter to me, a white male, if there wasn't a single white male on the court, because that is not a pre-requisite to good judiciary.
There are likely enough well-qualified and astute jurists from each of the various demographic segments of American society to populate all nine seats on the U.S. Supreme Court and produce diverse views and numerous split decisions. So our emphasis should be on selecting the best and improving on the decades long record of mediocrity that has marked the court. That, of course, is a pipe dream, but it sure does delight the imagination.
Choose the best and the "diversity" thing will take care of itself.
Those two jurists would not be on my list of "the best".
What I had in mind in terms of "the best" was along the lines of what I described in the post as some of the attributes of "good judiciary." My main point is that we can do, and have been able to do for the past several decades - but haven't - , better than the mediocrity that has populated the high court during all this time.
Why not appoint an atheist or a Muslim? Where's their representation?
and they are *not* representing anyone.
don't you mean "Americans who SAY they are Protestant"?
Far too many people profess to a particular reason and then act in complete disregard to the more godly aspects of that religion.
more Christianity in a 2/3 majority = more diversity?
Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, Atheist: four other options that represent actual diversity, but they don't even deserve mention?
call me when there's a Taoist on the high court. then I’ll gladly talk diversity with you.
I am bemused that he cannot abide a protestant-free court even for the brief time that state of affairs has existed and is likely to continue. FTR I am a Episcopalian-raised atheist, and "protestant" alone tells me little about someone's theology. There is a vast, gaping divide between the liberal wing of the Episcopal church and the fire-and-brimstone, pray-away-the-gay wing of the Baptists, Lutherans, etc.
Putting a atheist, Muslim, Asian, Buddhist on that court just because their different wont make this country any stronger. Now if one of those people Have years of experience and knowledge of the Constitution than yeah put them on the court. but you cant put them on the court just because you want to make it more diverse.