news-record.com

Skip to the site menu
Skip to search

BLOGS

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

The Front Pew

« Return to blog

The Catholic shift

Sotomayor would be sixth of nine Catholics on the Supreme Court.

Permalink

Posted by Nancy H. McLaughlin on Wednesday, May 27, 2009 at 9:42 am

What do you think?

6 comment(s)

Read other visitors' comments.

Other Recent Entries

The Lutheran split (Nov. 20)
Life, death and the non-believer (Nov. 20)
An individual scratched through the "$100,000 needed" and wrote in $99,000 (Nov. 19)
Your college major could determine your religious beliefs (Nov. 12)
When people share personal information, does it make it fair game for criticism? (Nov. 12)

RSS: Subscribe to this blog

Comments

This article has been closed to new comments. Comments are generally closed after 14 days. However, comments may be closed earlier at the discretion of the News & Record.

Inappropriate content? Please notify us.

Get A Clue

June 2, 2009 - 10:35 am EDT

As has been amply demonstrated over time, Catholics--like virtually any other religious sect--can count among its members those who can dispense with their professional responsibilities in a manner respectful of our nation's laws and secular divisions while practicing their faith privately.
I am personally skeptical when any particular group represents the vast majority of any governmental body, be it Catholics or white males. However, that alone is not reason enough to cry favortism. While I disagree with some of the individual rulings handed down by each of the 9 Justtices of the Supreme Court I see no pattern of bias 'favoring Catholics' or even Catholic dogma.
What I do have tremendous problems with is the wording of the headline for this blog entry and the paucity of the entry itself. It appears to imply nefarious behavior at the SCOTUS level and to 'raise one eyebrow' by providing a factoid for commentary.
Even though this is only a blog, it represents the N&R and should be held to basic journalistic ethics. Personally, I'd be embarrassed to collect a paycheck for simply typing one line.

kuranes

June 2, 2009 - 11:05 pm EDT

I, on the other hand, am skeptical of identity politics. The idea that the Supreme Court should reflect the proportionate ethnicity of the country, as a guest said on the Daily Show yesterday, is an absurd superstition based on the assumptions that, first, all members of a gender or ethnic group think alike and, second, that nobody outside the group can share their particular perspective. Therefore, the diversocrats conclude, the only way to get X group's interests represented is to have a member of X on the court, regardless of their personal qualifications, or the availability of other, better qualified members of non-X. The role of the court is to interpret the constitution, not to represent America's ethnic diversity. Where is the Asian justice? The gay justice? How is every group to have the seat it has a right to if there are only nine justices? Ridiculous.

Get A Clue

June 3, 2009 - 4:53 pm EDT

I always enjoy people who pull such apples to oranges comparisons out of their place where the sun never shines because what they're really saying is, "Let's just stick to white men ruling everything." You can put lipstick on your racist pig, but it's still a racist pig.
Funny how the majority never feels a need to question the 'race politics' or 'gender politics' of every white man nominated to a leadership post. How incredibly coincidental. ;-)

kuranes

June 4, 2009 - 4:23 pm EDT

The white men on the court have disagreed on every issue except the few that were unanimous. So which of these divergent opinions was the official White Male Opinion? Since I'm a white male who never got the manual of official White Male Opinions, I need to know these things. Thanks so much.

Get A Clue

June 5, 2009 - 10:35 am EDT

If I type slowly enough perhaps it will sink in. The premise of your argument is we're doing just fine with the historical 'all white all the time' status quo. The reality is we're not, and nominating qualified non-caucasian males to SCOTUS (let alone anything else) is an idea long overdue.
You're a racist and most likely a sexist. You know it, you tell your jokes and whine to your buddies about the "good 'ol days" every chance you get.
So you have a choice. Grow up. Get on board. Unshackle yourself from the small-minded insecurities of your upbringing and become a decent human being and perhaps even a role model to your children.
Or revel in your stupidity as the world passes you by.
Your call.

kuranes

June 11, 2009 - 11:22 pm EDT

Apparently, to you everyone who is not on the multiculturalist bandwagon is a racist, sexist moron who needs to "grow up." Well, thanks for the fine example of maturity you show in this post. You don't know anything about me or my upbringing (liberal Episcopalian, not that you asked), yet you confidently relate what I tell my buddies and imagine that I have children, and throw every nasty epithet you can think of while distorting what I said. This does not inspire me with respect for your rationality or civility. Are white males the only group you don't feel is entitled to respect?
For the record, I have no objection to a qualified person of any race, ethnicity, or gender being on the court; I object to race, ethnicity and gender being considered as somehow qualifications in and of themselves. So you have a choice too: either represent opposing views accurately and treat others with respect, or be dismissed as a zealot and malcontent who would rather rant and insult than persuade. I have always found that it is the zealous malcontents who are driven by "small-minded insecurities." If that is your boat, I'll swim, thanks.