Prior to the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, over the weekend, six out of the nine members of the Supreme Court were Roman Catholics. The other three are Jewish. On the face of it, one could charitably view that makeup as being evidence of our nation's religious tolerance. Because, after all, there is a long history of discrimination against both Catholics and Jews in this country. In fact, to this day, we have only elected one Catholic to the office of president of the United States and no Jew has ever been president.
So, if a religious test exists for the highest office in the land, it clearly doesn't exist for the Supreme Court. All of the tributes being paid to Justice Scalia, in the wake of his unexpected death, talk about how strongly he was influenced by his Catholic faith. And of course that aspect of his life is always presented as a positive good, at least by the mainstream media commentators. But, when I did a google search posing the question Why are so many members of the Supreme Court Catholic? some interesting things came up. And what particularly struck me is how perfectly the rightward tilt of the court, over the past several decades, mirrors the steadily increasing percentage of Catholic members. I don't think that is a coincidence.
So, if a religious test exists for the highest office in the land, it clearly doesn't exist for the Supreme Court. All of the tributes being paid to Justice Scalia, in the wake of his unexpected death, talk about how strongly he was influenced by his Catholic faith. And of course that aspect of his life is always presented as a positive good, at least by the mainstream media commentators. But, when I did a google search posing the question Why are so many members of the Supreme Court Catholic? some interesting things came up. And what particularly struck me is how perfectly the rightward tilt of the court, over the past several decades, mirrors the steadily increasing percentage of Catholic members. I don't think that is a coincidence.
The Roman Catholic Church is a deeply, and fundamentally, conservative institution that stands firmly opposed to many, if not most, elements of contemporary American society and culture. And I am hardly being hyperbolic. What I just wrote about the Catholic Church is an unimpeachable statement of fact. The Vatican cannot even bring itself to approve the use of contraceptives, let alone recognize things like gay marriage or Abortion Rights. And both of those issues have been fiercely contested issues in the cultural wars that have roiled our politics for at least the past quarter-century. It stands to reason that, in the eyes of conservative American politicians, a practicing and devout Roman Catholic promises to be a safe bet on those issues. And their instincts have been proven correct time and again. Antonin Scalia is a perfect case in point. He consistently, and forcefully, opposed both gay rights and abortion rights arguing that because neither thing is mentioned in the Constitution, neither is entitled to constitutional protection.
Scalia was, as we have been told countless times over the weekend, a strong adherent of originalism which is a principle of interpretation that views the Constitution's meaning as fixed as of the time of enactment. To that end, he would spend hours poring over 18th century dictionaries looking up words to try and divine the precise meaning that they would have held for the Founders. Nearly all of the many tributes to Scalia I have heard over the past couple of days claim that it is through the principle of originalism that he arrived at his almost reactionary positions. The possibility that Scalia's religion might have been influencing his decisions is almost never mentioned. Are we supposed to believe that this intensely religious man never allowed his personal faith to intrude into his judicial reasoning? That requires an enormous leap of faith. You simply cannot separate Antonin Scalia from his religion. Which is not to say that he was always 100% consistent. For example, Scalia managed to find a way to reconcile his support for the death penalty with the teachings of his church. And he clearly didn't approve of the perceived liberalism of Pope Francis, as evidenced by his childish decision to boycott Francis' historic speech to Congress this past September. I don't recall hearing any mention of that in any of the maudlin tributes to Scalia.
Scalia was, as we have been told countless times over the weekend, a strong adherent of originalism which is a principle of interpretation that views the Constitution's meaning as fixed as of the time of enactment. To that end, he would spend hours poring over 18th century dictionaries looking up words to try and divine the precise meaning that they would have held for the Founders. Nearly all of the many tributes to Scalia I have heard over the past couple of days claim that it is through the principle of originalism that he arrived at his almost reactionary positions. The possibility that Scalia's religion might have been influencing his decisions is almost never mentioned. Are we supposed to believe that this intensely religious man never allowed his personal faith to intrude into his judicial reasoning? That requires an enormous leap of faith. You simply cannot separate Antonin Scalia from his religion. Which is not to say that he was always 100% consistent. For example, Scalia managed to find a way to reconcile his support for the death penalty with the teachings of his church. And he clearly didn't approve of the perceived liberalism of Pope Francis, as evidenced by his childish decision to boycott Francis' historic speech to Congress this past September. I don't recall hearing any mention of that in any of the maudlin tributes to Scalia.
