creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Patrick Buchanan
Pat Buchanan
17 Feb 2012
The New Blacklist

My days as a political analyst at MSNBC have come to an end. After 10 enjoyable years, I am departing, after … Read More.

14 Feb 2012
On to Tehran -- or Is It Damascus?

Our War Party has been temporarily diverted from its clamor for war on Iran by the insurrection against the … Read More.

10 Feb 2012
Obama's Trampling on God's Turf Now

Yes, Virginia, there is a religious war going on. It is for the soul of America. And traditional Christianity … Read More.

Why No Evangelical Justice?

Share Comment

When Republicans were warned not to give Sonia Sotomayor the drubbing Democrats gave Robert Bork and Sam Alito — lest they be perceived as sexist and racist by women and Hispanics — the threat was credible, for it underscored a new reality in American politics.

The Supreme Court, far from being the last redoubt of the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant in America, reflects the collapse of that WASP establishment, and a rising racial, ethnic and gender consciousness and solidarity.

Consider. In 45 years, no Democratic president has put a single white Protestant or Catholic man or woman on the court.

Six nominees have been sent to Congress by Democrats since 1964: Thurgood Marshall, an African-American, four Jewish nominees — Arthur Goldberg, Abe Fortas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer — and one wise Latina woman. Not since JFK put All-American Byron "Whizzer" White on in 1962 have Democrats elevated a white Christian.

What about the Republicans?

Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford nominated seven to the court. All were white, all were male, all were Protestant: Warren Burger, Clement Haynsworth, Harrold Carswell, Harry Blackmun, Lewis Powell, William Rehnquist and John Paul Stevens. No diversity there.

And from almost every standpoint, Nixon and Ford failed.

Two of Nixon's nominees, Haynsworth and Carswell, were rejected. Three of the four Nixon appointees who were elevated — Burger, Blackmun and Powell — voted for Roe v. Wade, which Blackmun wrote. Only Rehnquist turned out to be a stellar justice, among the best in a century.

Nixon had intended to appoint the first woman, Mildred Lillie of California, but was dissuaded by late resistance.

Ford's lone choice, John Paul Stevens, was approved unanimously, went to the court, turned left and has anchored the liberal wing for 34 years.

With Reagan, nearly three decades ago, Republican presidents became more ecumenical.

His first pick, as promised, was a woman, Sandra Day O'Connor. His second was the first Italian-American ever to sit on the high court, Antonin Scalia. His third was Bork, a Protestant. When Bork was rejected, Reagan chose Douglas Ginsburg, a Jewish judge and colleague of Bork's on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. When Ginsburg was pulled because of a marijuana incident in college days, Reagan went with Anthony Kennedy, an Irish Catholic judge from his home state of California.

Kennedy and O'Connor became swing votes and unreliable as constitutional conservatives.

But, on diversity grounds, Reagan can hardly be faulted.

George H.W. Bush chose David Souter, a white Protestant from New Hampshire, who followed Stevens left, and Clarence Thomas, an African-American from Pin Point, Ga. Thomas was savaged, but his counter-charge of having been subjected to a "high-tech lynching" knocked Democrats back on their heels and drove a wedge between party liberals and feminists and Democratic conservatives.

In replacing Chief Justice Rehnquist and O'Connor with John Roberts and Alito, George W. Bush succeeded as no other Republican president since World War II. He had not only tilted the court to constitutionalism, but also replaced two white Protestants justices with two white Catholic justices, one of whom is the second Italian-American on the court.

Where does that leave the court today?

When Sotomayor is approved by the Senate, the court will, in terms of religious minorities, consist of six Catholics, two Jews and one Protestant. Ethnically, there will be one African-American, one Hispanic American, one Irish-American, two Jewish-Americans, two Italian Americans and two Anglos.

That is diversity, is it not?

And who is the least represented minority in America on the U.S. Supreme Court? Not Catholics, who have two-thirds of the seats. Not Jewish-Americans, who though 2 percent of the population, have 22 percent of the seats. Not African-Americans, who at 13 percent of the population have 11 percent of the seats. And not Hispanics, who at 15 percent of the population will have 11 percent of the seats.

No, the most underrepresented group of Americans — nay, the most unrepresented minority, the largest group of our fellow citizens never to have had one of its own sit on the U.S. Supreme Court in the modern era is — Evangelical Christians.

They are more numerous than Catholics, who at 24 percent of the population have 67 percent of the seats on the court. And, for Republicans, they are a far more reliable voting bloc than Catholics — not to mention Hispanics, Jews and African-Americans, all of whom voted somewhere between two to one and 20 to one for Obama.

Bush II tried to close the Evangelical gap with Harriet Miers, but conservatives opposed her as unqualified.

Republicans should now be searching for highly qualified Evangelical Christian judges and constitutional scholars, women as well as men — and, when falsely accused of being "anti-Hispanic" or "anti-woman," ought to reply: "What do you liberals have against white Christians, man or woman, not to have named one in 45 years?"

Everybody can play the diversity game.

Patrick Buchanan is the author of the new book "Churchill, Hitler and 'The Unnecessary War." To find out more about Patrick Buchanan, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS.COM


Comments

5 Comments | Post Comment
Yeah, all we need on the Supreme Court is couple of those Republicans from that C Street den of bible thumpers. Fundamentalist Christians are extremists and that's why they're not on the court. Name one of the founding fathers that was a Fundamentalist Christian that took the bible literally. Many were religious in one way or another, but none were Jesus freaks of the stripe we are seeing now.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Elwood Anderson
Tue Jul 21, 2009 12:15 AM
Sir;...The problem you are seeing that on its face may seem unfair may well be very fair.... It could be that the logic of the Evangelicals and Catholics is tailored to fit their Bigotry, and to bulwark their prejudices... It could be that people who are used to God taking up the slack just do not excel in law, as students, as attorneys, as judges and as justices... I do think it is terrible that each group must have some representation on the bench because no one not represented has an advocate who counts...It is still a long ways from democracy... It is too bad that every group did not have a veto when necessary on any action they think unjust...To be fair; justice is no consideration of the court, but whether constitutional...When fair minded people can see that government, as we have it constituted, never set a natural limit on rights, they are hard pressed to put some one on the court determined to see individual rights denied, and see some authority in this land that is not duly elected by the people... I don't buy it; and there ought to be an end to it...Those who accept God should keep out of the way of government when government is acting with justice... If they have a difference of opinion, they should take it before the whole people instead of trying to end around democracy all the time... They work to get elected their Presidents and Senators...And the intent is to shoe horn a ringer into the court to trash all our protections....And we can see this... As much as we make a big deal out of moral issues before the court that it has no business judging, there are the issues of business and property law that court has no business deciding against the people... And this is what they routinely do...The court has served their masters well... The question is always the same: whether our rights will be extinguished today, or reprieved... Thanks...Sweeney
Comment: #2
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Tue Jul 21, 2009 8:05 PM
Sometimes you can be almost brilliant, Mr. B, but then again sometimes you miss by a mile. What you don't seem to get, which is right in front of your face like a big fat pie headed for same, is it's NOT ABOUT RACE. And it's not about religion either. Get it?? What matters is not what skin color you wear but what's in your heart and mind, or what's not as is the case with those Republican-appointed black-robed bozos sitting up there in Supremeland. It's all about Republican presidents doing their best to pay off the right wing with robe-bearers who will pull us back from the edge of democracy, preaching every step of the way about how courts must follow the law instead of making it, as they summarily obliterate any legal precedent standing in their way, e.g., Bush v. Palm Beach Canvassing Board and Bush v. Gore. Remember that one? The hatchet men who up to then preached the sanctity of states' rights hacked up the right of the State of Florida to resolve its own vote, and handed us our former Great Warrior and Spender President, from whose antics we and a few million Iraqis whose lives have been utterly destroyed will be recovering for a long, long, time. Rub a little black shoe polish on the skin, find a double X chromosome to carry the torch, flip through the book looking for "ethnic" names. All those things can do the trick as long as the programming fills the bill.
Comment: #3
Posted by: Masako
Wed Jul 22, 2009 9:56 AM
Dear Mr. B: I agree with you many times but not most of the time by a long shot.Though many of my friends call me a bleeding heart liberal, I am not. Why no evangelical justice? Because sir, by their own utterances, their first allegiance is to God. Which is their absolute right. However it makes evangelical justice and oxymoron.
Comment: #4
Posted by: Virena Tatcher
Thu Jul 23, 2009 1:07 PM
The answer to Mr Buchanan's question " Why no Evangelical justice" is simple. A US Supreme Court Justice is suppose to uphold and rule on the Constitutionality of the laws of the United States of America.
According to Title 28, Chapter I, Part 453 of the United States Code, each Supreme Court Justice takes the following oath: "I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."
Evangelicals believe in God's word and the Bible as a "Higher Law" than the US Constitution. Based on this information an "Evangelical Judge" would be unable to take the oath of office as they would be unable to impartially perform their duties.
Comment: #5
Posted by: Eric Patterson
Fri Jul 24, 2009 9:41 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Pat Buchanan
Feb. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 31 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 1 2 3
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Author’s Podcast
Michelle Malkin
Michelle MalkinUpdated 27 Feb 2012
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 20 Feb 2012
Mark Levy
Mark LevyUpdated 18 Feb 2012

7 Aug 2007 Subprime Superpower

17 Jun 2008 Return of the Censors

19 Dec 2006 Person of the Year: Ahmadinejad