President Obama says he’s looking for a “consensus candidate” who could be confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court to fill the vacancy created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. He hasn’t named any particular characteristics he’s looking for in a justice, but let me suggest one. How about a Protestant?
When boards or institutions or professions or universities or police departments are thought to be lacking in a sufficient number of members of left-certified victim groups — usually blacks, Hispanics, or women — the cry is heard that said institution, etc., does not reflect the makeup of its universe, its community. “Diversity” is needed, and it can’t come too soon.
So how did we get to a point in a nation where more than half of citizens are Protestants and there’s not a single Protestant on the Supreme Court? Right now the lineup is five Catholics and three Jews. It was six Catholics before Justice Scalia went to his reward (which I’m sure will be considerable).
For some reason this demographic under-representation — in fact no representation — doesn’t seem to trouble the identity politics nose counters, so sensitive to slights to other groups. I wonder why. OK, the nose counters aren’t all that crazy about those Catholics either, or anyone who takes seriously any religion other than secular leftist politics.
And while we’re up, what would be wrong with a justice who got his/her law degree from a state university, or even a private school outside of the Ivy League? As it stands, the high court functions as the U.S. Supreme Harvard and Yale Club.
Of course Senate Republicans would be foolish to rise to the bait and consider any Obama nominee this year. But then there’s ample precedent for Republican Senate foolishness, is there not?
Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link: https://spectatorworld.com/.