Vatican, Meet the Supreme Court; Court, Meet Vatican
Christopher Hitchens is irritated.
What in God’s name – you should forgive the expression – is all this about there being “no religious test” for appointments to high public office? Most particularly in the case of the U.S. Supreme Court, there is the most blatant religious test imaginable. You may not even be considered for the bench unless you have a religion of some kind. Surely no adherent of any version of “originalism” can possibly argue that the Framers of the Constitution intended a spoils system to be awarded among competing clerical sects.
Argue, no, probably not, but then the adherents don’t have to, do they, since no one (Hitchens apart) ever makes an issue of it. Especially not the people who actually vote whether or not to confirm Supreme Court nominees – which is Hitchens’ point, and why he’s irritated.
A few weeks ago, I wrote about the man who is now our chief justice. I pointed to unrebutted evidence that, in answer to a direct question from a fellow Catholic (Sen. Richard J. Durbin, D-Ill.), Roberts had replied that in the case of a conflict between the law and the teaching of the Vatican, he would recuse himself. Since obviously it is impossible to nominate, let alone confirm, anyone who does not answer that the law and the Constitution should control in all cases, I proposed that Roberts ought to be asked the question again and in public. For this, I got exactly what I expected: allegations of anti-Catholic bigotry from the fideists at National Review and then (not just for my benefit) a full-page ad or two in the press, saying that anyone who dared raise such a question would be accused of applying … “a religious test.”
So much for that little issue then.
But what is honest skepticism – and a regard for evidence and logic – when set against the profession of a mere “faith” that neither demands nor offers any evidence of any kind? And this latter “qualification” is now urged upon us with special fervor in the selection of – a judge.
Score one for the theocrats.
Hitchens’s ignorance of how US domestic politics work would be kind of sweet, if he had been in the country only a year or two. But he’s lived here, what, 20-plus years now?
The party in the White House gets to appoint who they want to the Supreme Court. This situation wasn’t hard to imagine a year ago, when Hitchens publicly endorsed Bush for re-election.
Maybe Hitch didn’t realize that he was expected to buy the whole package? OTOH maybe he is becoming so internalised to the iniquities of the US system that he will be just another of those useless pundits who criticise isolated portions without deigning to see the rottenness of the whole…
I think that several people have misinterpreted what “No religious test” means. It just means that, having satisfied the other conditions to get a government job, you don’t have to (for instance) agree to the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England, or swear on a Bible, or a Koran, or any other holy book.
It doesn’t stop Senators saying things like “I will only consider Catholics” or “I will not consider Catholics”. They have the freedom to say whatever they like, and to vote using whatever criteria they can dream up.
“The party in the White House gets to appoint who they want to the Supreme Court.”
No. It gets to nominate anyone it wants to, not appoint. The nomination is supposed to be subject to Senate approval. The fact that Democrats are too afraid of Republicans to exercise that duty properly is not written into the Constitution.
Constitutional originalism is a religion, too.
Practically speaking, in the current climate with the Republican leadership constituted the way it is, the Democrats can’t stop it. At best, they could stop Miers’s nomination, at the cost of great upheaval in Washington and collateral damage to the party, and then they’d never be able to stop Bush’s next nominee who would likely be worse. The Democrats are dithering among their several bad options: do we vote No, do we vote Yes but complain about it, do we filibuster. The moral of the story is, next time, win the damn election.
You realize that if Miers is defeated it’ll be because the far-right Republicans disapprove of her.
What is your point, Dix Hill? I know all that. So what? I’m not a Democrat, I’m not in Washington, I’m not a political operative.
That Hitchens takes an airless and idiotically simplistic view of the issue. And he IS in Washington and IS a de facto political operative.
Let me elaborate: I think, like LJPK, that he misunderstands the definition of “religious test.” The fact that we have Protestants, Catholics, and Jews on the court (and maybe we have atheists too, though maybe not, I don’t know) is proof that there is no religious test as the authors of the Constitution defined it.
If he objects (and I know he does) to the ceremonial theism of American politics, this is a funny place to draw the line, given that the real-world objections to Miers are more that she’s not theistic enough. If he’s the scourge of religious bigotry, there are more harmful examples of it in Hitchens’s beloved Bush Administration and his beloved US military.
If he wants there not to be “religious quotas” for Supreme Court appointments, he should support the Democrats. If he hopes a religious skeptic can be appointed to the Supreme Court, he should support the Democrats. If he really opposes religious fascism, he should support the Democrats. As usual in Hitchens’s mental universe, there are only grand principles, no trade-offs.
In all honesty I would question the ability of the main to be a fair judge if he lived his life by the dictates of the Vatican.
I would prefer a man who can think for himself. So in this regard i do think less of him as a judge.
I don’t think Hitchens does misunderstand the religious test: I think he is pointing out that it doesn’t mean what it seems to mean, what it ought to mean, what people take it to mean – one or all of those. It’s now, in actual usage (as opposed to original intent) a muddled concept; I think Hitchens is pointing that out.
“If he wants there not to be “religious quotas” for Supreme Court appointments, he should support the Democrats.”
You’re kidding, right? Why on earth should he do that? Are you trying to claim that the Democrats are the secular party? If so – have you been paying attention lately?
Just to be fair to Hitchens: if I recall, he first endorsed Bush, then endorsed Kerry, and I’m not at all sure who he ended up endorsing: I think you can hardly hold him co-responsible for the Bush administration, though.
“Are you trying to claim that the Democrats are the secular party? If so – have you been paying attention lately?”
What party would propose as the alternative and why?
Is there an instance of Clinton or some other Democrat trumpeting the religious affiliation of an appointee? Clinton appointed Ginsberg, and it might have profited him to trumpet her Jewishness to his Democratic base, but I don’t believe he did.
So, yeah, I claim that the pro-gay rights, pro-abortion rights, pro-privacy rights, pro-human rights, pro-internationalist, pro-science party is the secular party.
A judge does not have to be fair; a judge has to be impartial. Hitchens, if I understand him correctly, is saying that ‘no religious test’ should not stop Senators from turning down nominees if their religion conflicts with their supposed impartiality.
It is an astute remark, but it assumes that the legislative branch’s aim is nominating impartial judges rather than political flunkies, which I don’t believe is true.
Dix Hill – The Democratic Party may be closer to being Secular than the Republicans, but are not likely to nominate an public atheist to the Supreme Court – much less a Department Secretary.
All the legal experience in the world (as a judge, litigator or professor) means little without a public declaration of regular and devoted god-bothering. As you may recall, before ‘the scream’, one of Howard Deans most embarrassing moments came when he tried to BS some biblical knowledge.
Like it or not, there is a religious test for Judges and (for the most part) major politicians. I thought Hitch’s major complaint stemmed from the media/President/public’s claim that none exists.
There is the clue above: CEREMONIAL THEISM. Well said Dix Hill.
I take on faith ;-) that considered, rational lip service to this major social norm will let a solid, qualified person into this kind of position, even if that person would express the teensiest doubt of the miracle of transubstantiation when under torture.
Ceremonial theism is hypocrisy from an atheists or a fundamentalists viewpoint, but there are plenty of worse hypocrisies in realpolitik.
You have to live surrounded by people who think ‘alternative’ therapies such as homeopathy are superior to evidence-based medicine, that affirmative action is the opposite of racism, that 120 million dead are not sufficient evidence against communism, or that not being of the same political stripe is evil.
If you can hold your head together while surrounded by this level of irrationality, then surely you can cope with judges who are rational enough to accept CEREMONIAL religious positions when they are needed by their society?
Why should “ceremonial theism” be required of Supreme Court justices–or U.S. Presidents, for that matter? Sounds like a religious test to me. Perhaps benign compared to the Spanish Inquisition or the Taliban, but a religious test nonetheless.
“accept CEREMONIAL religious positions when they are needed by their society?”
Are they needed by our society? I don’t think they are. You think we’re all gonna start eating babies, raping corpses, and serving red wine with fish if we stop all this “under God” foolery?
The Guardian-Monbiot-Berliner-Pinter Award for PottyMouths #1; Pinter ‘Re-Gifts’ Nobel prize to Despot Lawyer
Harold Pinter has today responded furiously to his Nobel prize award stating that ‘those fascist fucks in Washington and Buckingham Palace and Number 10 Downing Street and the Vatican cannot buy me”, and instantly re-gifted his award to Anthony Scrivener QC for his efforts to clear the name of illegally imprisoned human rights activist Saddam Hussein. In an emotional statement to the press face-down from a Dublin urinal, Pinter said “because fucking c@nt!”
Mr Pinter was a senile twat, and lived in 1940s Moscow all his useless puerile life.
I think I heard the phrase “ceremonial theism” in connection with the California atheist who sued/is suing to get the words “under God” removed from the Pledge of Allegiance.
Funny thing–the plaintiff (Mewdow, is that his name?) argued that the pledge works to indoctrinate school children, but the government argued that the phrase is merely ceremonial. In that instance Mewdow was taking God’s name more seriously than the Bush Justice Dept.
Thinking about courts, I think of the fact that witnesses swear an oath on the Bible. There are probably other routine legal references to religion, that if you’re a judge or lawyer you will have rationalized and made your peace with long before you get nominated to the SCOTUS.
I think the man’s name was Michael Newdow.
You don’t have to swear an oath on the Bible; you can affirm, or use another holy book of choice.
The Supreme Court opens its sessions with (IIRC) “God save this honorable court”.
We were talking about how Supreme Court nominees and Presidential candidates are now de facto required to profess (however insincerely) a belief in a deity, specifically the Judeo-Christian one. Sounds like a de facto religious test of a sort, however vague. And what exactly does this profession of faith accomplish? Does it guarantee that the nominee or candidate will be a better Justice or President? Sounds extremely doubtful to me. Does it placate devoutly religious Christians and Jews? But why should it be the government’s job to do that?
“Is there an instance of Clinton or some other Democrat trumpeting the religious affiliation of an appointee?”
If I recall correctly, the religiosity of Joe Lieberman was trumpeted fairly loudly by quite a few Democratic Party people when he was the VP candidate. A good part of his appeal to the party at that time, or so I recall it being said, was that that Lieberman was so very pious that hardly anyone would believe he could be anything but squeaky-clean and sleaze-free.
Good point. Like most Democrat supporters, I tend to blot Lieberman out of my mind.
Ah. See, Lieberman looms very large in my mind. No wonder we talked right past each other!