Some of the reaction to President Obama’s nomination of Elena Kagan has been all-too-predictable: she’s too liberal! No, she’s too conservative! She’s a babykiller! And some of it is just plain gross: Omigod, she might be a lesbian!
But the strangest discussion of Kagan’s pick concerns her faith. The chattering classes are apparently struck by the notion that for the first time, the Supreme Court could be without a Protestant member. Is it a good thing? A bad thing? The Villagers just don’t seem to know.
This seems to me an extraordinarily silly conversation. The high court should not be the exclusive preserve of a particular religious affiliation, nor should one sect or another be barred from it. But yumping yimeney, how is it even possible to adequately reflect American religious diversity in a nine-member panel? That’s assuming that such a reflection would be desirable, a point that could be argued.
Then too, religious affiliation only tells you so much about a person. For example, Howard Dean, Sen. Max Baucus, Rep. Thelma Drake, and I are all members of the United Church of Christ. Yes, it’s a notoriously heterodox denomination, but it’s also small: a little less than 2 million members. If we can hold that much ideological diversity in our little denomination, what do you think would happen with Catholics or even evangelicals?
Look, there’s only so many people even remotely qualified for such a position. Presidents should make their picks based on a nominee’s track record and what direction they might steer the court in. Religious representation ought to be far down the list of considerations, if it’s there at all. This business about “should the Supreme Court have a Protestant on it?” really boils down to “how much WASP privilege should we preserve?” I think a far more salient question to be asking is whether or not an “out” atheist could be confirmed. My guess is not, and that’s a damn shame.
