Sotomayor as the Supreme Court's 6th Catholic
By Dan Gilgoff, God & Country
Sonia Sotomayor's Roman Catholicism hasn't received much attention in the first-day stories about her nomination to the Supreme Court, but religion reporters have taken note, pointing out that she'd provide the sixth Catholic vote on a nine-person court.
The White House isn't pushing Sotomayor as a Catholic nominee, at least not in the way George W. Bush's White House pushed current Chief Justice John Roberts as a committed Catholic (to reassure social conservatives worried about his abortion position) and failed nominee Harriet Miers as a Bible-believing evangelical (ditto).
Obama did mention Sotomayor's Catholic school upbringing in introducing her yesterday. And a White House aide told Beliefnet's Steve Waldman that "Judge Sotomayor was raised as a Catholic and attends church for family celebrations and other important events."
Still, the White House isn't actively selling her as a Catholic nominee, as far as I know.
So does Sotomayor's Catholicism matter? Or is it only important when it comes to sizing up conservative Catholic high court nominees, a double standard that the Catholic League's Bill Donohue says the political left and the news media are applying?
I don't know if Sotomayor's Catholicism will influence her rulings. I haven't seen reports of it happening in her federal court opinions to date, though Sotomayor has been sympathetic to abortion-rights opponents and to plaintiffs alleging violations of their religious liberties.
But Sotomayor's Catholicism matters for two political reasons:
1. It breaks the Republican Party's recent monopoly on Catholic nominees. Presidents George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan nominated every Catholic currently on the Supreme Court: Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, and Samuel Alito. The last Democratic president to nominate a Catholic to the Supreme Court was FDR.
Republicans' embrace of conservative Catholic figures, including on the Supreme Court, helps explain why the GOP has been able to make big inroads among Catholics, traditionally a Democratic constituency. Bush went so far as to win the Catholic vote against Catholic Democratic nominee John Kerry.
2. Even if Sotomayor isn't being sold as a Catholic nominee, her Catholicism, especially her Catholic school experience, gives her political advantages in the nomination process. Combined with her limited but moderate record on abortion and her strong record on religious liberty, it makes her palatable to culturally moderate Americans. It also makes it impossible for conservative religious groups to caricature her as a godless lefty.
There's been some speculation that conservative Catholics will attack Sotomayor for being insufficiently Catholic, but I'm skeptical. As Mark Silk notes, Supreme Court nominees are not subject to the same religious tests (the political, not constitutional, kind) as presidential candidates.
And it was religious conservatives who built an entire campaign alleging that liberals took a "Catholics Need Not Apply" position toward John Roberts during his 2005 nomination hearings. So I'm guessing the same crowd will be loath to go after Sotomayor on the basis of her Catholicism, even if it's alleging that she's not Catholic enough.
- Follow Dan Gilgoff on Twitter .
- Read more about the Obama administration .
Tags: Supreme Court | religion | Catholicism | Sonia Sotomayor
Tools: 
Share
|
| Comments (9) | Print
Reader Comments
Six Catholics, two Jews and John Paul Stevens
Most people considering Judge Sotomayor's religion naturally approach it from the perspective of how it might inform her decisions. From a purely socialogocal point of view it's rather stunning that after Judge Sotomayor's confirmation there will be exzctly one protestant on the US Supreme Court: Justice John Paul Stevens, who is 89 years old.
INTJ
Does Not Matter wrote:
"The Republicans can't have it both ways. They can't go on and on about not being an activist judge, but still have a litmus test on social issues like abortion and birth control."
Your assumption is that my opposition to abortion is strictly a religious issue, and in that you are incorrect. I oppose abortion because I believe it is fundamentally irrational to say that an unborn child with a heartbeat and brain activity is not human, and if it is human, it is therefore entitled to the right to life under the U.S. Constitution, and equal protection of all our laws.
As for Sotomayor being appointed by G.H.W. Bush, she was selected at the time by respected liberal Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan as part of a political quid pro quo (a la "The West Wing") deal for Bush to get his choice for the other 3 New York judges, and that was before she began to reveal some of her more troubling views in public, consequently having little bearing on her qualifications today to join the Supreme Court.
INTJ
While I think religious affiliation is an invalid basis for either disqualifying or qualifying any nominee, I do find it interesting that those who are pushing for more "diversity" in the Court support Sotomayor's replacement of Souter, which would make the SCOTUS 67% Roman Catholic, 22% Jewish, and 11% Protestant, with Stevens, the oldest serving Justice as the last Protestant on the Court. Meanwhile, a 52% majority of the population is Protestant, and only 24% Catholic and 1.3% Jewish.
How do the proponents of a "representative" Court respond to that particular statistic?
advertisement
