Sotomayor as the Supreme Court's 6th Catholic

Reader Comments
Back to blog

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.

Daniel Deagler of PA 12:04PM July 13, 2009

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 of NC 10:08AM June 02, 2009

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?

INTJ of NC 9:56AM June 02, 2009

SUCKS. The news greets me daily filled to the brim with: Sotomayor is FEMALE. Sotomayor is HISPANIC. Sotomayor is CATHOLIC... These are her special super power skills she's elected with all in the mindframe of "open mindedness". She already shows a great judgement with words making a stupid racist/sexist comment that people immediatly sweep under the rug. You idiots lap it all up, you force it down my throat that since she has a star on her belly she MUST be enlightened? I am calling BS on you all. What will she be next when the Catholic line is stale, GAY? (no offense gays but really that will SET HER APART and make headline history) Sotomayor is a TIRING, TASTELESS MEDIA JUNKY. The things that have highlighted her into history have been nothing but proud and shallow eager commentary. I don't care what race she is, what sex she is, what her religious habits are or what she had for breakfast, if her decisions are crap than she is crap and so far she has only displayed a distinct tackyness for media fondlings.

L of MA 4:55PM June 01, 2009

There's a built-in contradiction -- catholic school means NO independence of judgement.

Mark of NY 7:45PM May 27, 2009

I don't think her Catholicism matters politically. The Democrats own the Senate and will pass her easily. Republicans questioning her won't bring it up.
As for the left they don't mind Catholics just as long as they are lefties and not faithful to the Church. It is faithful Catholics they object to.

Jeffrey L Miller of FL 5:55PM May 27, 2009

Religion is not supposed to enter into interpretations of the law. A rational unbiased opinion based strictly on precedent is not conditional upon one's faith.
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.
I for one support her as a choice. Like all of them - we'll have to see how well she does. She has all the credentials needed - and exceeds any requirement needed.
My favorite is that she was first put on the bench by Bush Sr. - a Republican, and was supported by Republicans at that time. She proved to be universal when Clinton also promoted her, and many Republicans voted for her then too. It would by amusing if Republicans now say no....showing themselves as the party of "No" - even when a person is incredibly qualified.
Religion is not the issue. Being a woman has more baggage, actually. There is always a lot of veiled commentary when a woman is considered. How many men have been considered "activist" when being reviewed for the court? Not many. But women - they always are accused of deciding with their hearts instead of their undisciplined minds. We are so weak....and emotional...!!
Let's see if we can avoid putting religion into the middle of everything.....and just decide based on her experience, her skills, her distinction.

Dorfy of SC 4:07PM May 27, 2009

The assumption implicit is that she is a practicing Catholic, something that is not know, and if her practice, if she does, is within the mainstream of the Church or more of Biden, Pelosi, etc cafeteria style. .

Tony of TX 3:59PM May 27, 2009

Even though this article brings up what so many others ignored, her Catholicity, it still skirts the issue.
How so? Because attending Church only for major family celebrations does NOT make one Catholic! It is the Catholic way of thinking that does that, a way of thinking better exhibited by much more frequent attendance than that.
But more importantly, rather than looking just at rare church attendance, one must look at the moral values revealed in the way she lives her life. But AFAIK, no one has done that yet.

Matt J. of CA 3:57PM May 27, 2009