Talk:Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States/Archive 2

Cardozo

A few historians contend that Cardozo, a Sephardic Jew of distant Portuguese descent,[12] and fluent in Spanish,[citation needed] should also be counted as the first Hispanic Justice.[1] - ---Am I the only one confused by this?? If he was portuguese then he wouldnt be hispanic as he was not from spain or a Spanish influenced country... also although still possible it would make it less likely that he spoke spanish —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.140.202.149 (talk) 07:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

In that case, the historians making the argument are wrong (but it has nonetheless been made). bd2412 T 12:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Cardozo spoke Spanish fluently and could read and understand Portuguese. He was an erudite person who demonstrated an interest in his Sephardic lineage although he apparently could never identify exactly whether his ancestors originated in Portugal or Spain, in either case they would have been Iberian Jews, themselves the descendents of Latin speaking Jews present in Iberia since Roman times.

Sonia Sotomayor is a light-skinned Afro-Puerto Rican, which means many of her ancestors were forcibly removed from West Africa and transported as slaves to Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Santo Domingo, she likely does not have the luxury of tracing her genealogy back through the centuries to Spain or any other part of Iberia, unless she were inclined to investigate the history of the slave-holders who owned her African ancestors and had sexual relations with them (a not very uplifting undertaking).--72.221.92.43 (talk) 00:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I've actually been trying to track down a source for the proposition that Cardozo spoke Spanish, and have been unable to do so. Do you have one? bd2412 T 00:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't find the source indicating he was tutored in Spanish, Greek, and Latin, however this source [[1]] indicates he attended the Spanish-Portuguese Synogogue in New York City, where services were held in Sephardic (i.e. Latin) accented Hebrew interspersed with Ladino words and phrases (i.e. words derived from Old Spanish and Old Portuguese, and that could have been derived from either of the two related languages). The source also says both sides of his family took great pride in their Ibero-Jewish heritage.--72.221.92.43 (talk) 03:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

And again, Cardozo

The line currently in the article ending the section on Hispanics is: "The majority view, therefore, is that Cardozo was not Hispanic, and thus only non-Hispanic whites and African-Americans had ever been on the Court until 2009.". This is not supported by the cited article, which only says the term wasn't in common use at the time (neither was "african-american", but nobody is disputing Thurgood Marshall). This is therefore original research. At best, we can say there is no consensus.FiveRings (talk) 19:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The vast majority of news outlets reporting that Sonia Sotomayor is the first Hispanic Justice is fairly incontrovertible evidence that this is the majority view. One would have to be quite insane to argue that she is not so viewed. bd2412 T 02:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

For example:

• Henry Julian Abraham, Justices, Presidents, and Senators: a History of the U.S. Supreme Court (2007), p. 318, stating that if appointed, Alberto Gonzales "would have been the first Hispanic American on the US Supreme Court".
• Jan Crawford Greenburg, Supreme Conflict: the Inside Story of the Struggle for Control of the United States Supreme Court (2007), p. 198, stating that "Democrats considered [Miguel] Estrada unacceptably conservative and feared he would be the first Hispanic nominated to the Supreme Court".
• Carlos R. Soltero, Latinos and American Law: Landmark Supreme Court Cases‎ (2006), p. 197: "As of 2005, No Hispanic has ever served as a justice on the United States Supreme Court".
• Debran Rowland, The Boundaries of Her Body: the Troubling History of Women's Rights in America‎ (2004), p. 306: "if [Miguel Estrada] had survived the nomination process to take a seat on the District of Columbia Circuit Court, many believed he eventually would have become the first Hispanic to sit on the United States Supreme Court".
• National Hispanic Center for Advanced Studies and Policy Analysis (U.S.), The State of Hispanic America‎ (1982), p. 98: "But, the supreme irony for Hispanics is that the court system itself and, in fact, the entire legal process including law enforcement officials, lawyers, law schools and the judiciary, has excluded Hispanics from positions of power and responsibility. This is equally true for the local police departments, which are still dominated by Anglo males, as it is for the United States Supreme Court, which has never had an Hispanic Justice".
• Raoul Lowery Contreras, A Hispanic View: American Politics and the Politics of Immigration‎ (2002), p. 83: "the morning line has short odds that President Bush will nominate a Hispanic to the United States Supreme Court. That, unlike President Clinton, who, in two full Presidential terms, betrayed his Hispanic supporters by nominating two Jewish lawyers to the Court instead of nominating the first Hispanic Supreme Court Justice in American history".
• John Anthony Maltese, The Selling of Supreme Court Nominees‎ (1998), p. 153: "A Hispanic candidate would make good political sense; no Hispanic had ever been appointed to the Supreme Court, and both parties were courting Hispanic votes in important electoral states such as California, Texas, and Florida".

Yet I have provided cites that specifically describe Cardozo as the first Hispanic Supreme Court Justice. Written by actual Hispanics. Personal insults aside, none of the quotes above say anything about a "majority opinion". And declaring it to be so is original research (hint - adding even more quotes will make it even more so). Oh, and while we're at it, much as White and Hispanic are not mutually exclusive, African-American and Hispanic aren't either. FiveRings (talk) 08:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The experts have repeatedly stated that there has never before been an Hispanic Justice. There is no basis for playing the race card here, as Carlos R. Soltero and Raoul Lowery Contreras are "actual Hispanics", and it would be absurd to suppose that the National Hispanic Center for Advanced Studies and Policy Analysis, also cited, had no Hispanic researchers/authors among those responsible for this report. bd2412 T 17:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

And other experts (from an academic background) have stated otherwise. There is no consensus. Once again - there is no consensus. The basis for many of the claims that Sotomayor is the first involve a redefinition of "Hispanic" to mean "Latino," and to specifically *exclude* those of Spanish or Spanish and Portuguese descent. This is an artifact of current culture, and does not reflect Webster's definition, or the more long-term usage. (His home language is irrelevant - ethnicity isn't just about language).FiveRings (talk) 22:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

A determination of ethnicity does require, however, a degree of certainty about one's own ancestry. The domicile of Cardozo's ancestors prior to their emigration from England and the Netherlands has never been conclusively demonstrated. The proportion of ancestry traceable to any particular lineage has not been shown, nor has the time spent in any particular region by any particular ancestor. As a Sephardic Jew, it is as likely that his ancestors came from Morocco, Turkey, or Italy (which would have him displace Scalia as the first Italian Justice). Diaspora populations are just fluid and amorphous, and are thus notoriously hard to pin down absent a hard paper trail or DNA evidence. bd2412 T 22:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

He referred to himself as "Iberian", much as Thurgood Marshall would have referred to himself as "Negro" or "Black" (but nobody disputes that he was the first African American justice, much as half-white Barak Obama is the first AA president). Marannos fleeing the Inquisition weren't in a hurry to document their Jewish ancestry, but kept private family tradition of their lineage. Where is the cutoff? How many generations removed? how diluted the DNA? There is, again, no consensus. FiveRings (talk) 23:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The fact that there is no consensus that Cardozo has any actual Iberian ancestry, or even that any of his ancestors even lived in Iberian lands for any greater time than it would take to pass through, is what makes it pure speculation to say that he does have such ancestry. Which is why the news media was universal in reporting that Sotomayor was the first Hispanic Justice. If a family legend held that one of your ancestors in the fifteenth century hailed from Malaysia, would you consider yourself Malaysian? bd2412 T 00:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

If I attended a Malaysian synagogue, with liturgy in a Malaysian-based language, and was part of a community that had documented roots in Malaysia, yes, I would. Even now, ethnicity is a matter of self-identification. There is no evidence that Sotomayor has any ancestry but Spanish, and she herself was born in New York. Why is she considered Puerto Rican? Because her ancestors "passed through"? FiveRings (talk) 00:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The analogy fails because Cardozo didn't attend a "Spanish" synagogue, he attended a Sephardic synagogue, and not all Sephardim have Hispanic ancestry. Sephardim also have documented roots in Morocco and Tunisia, which doesn't make Cardozo African either. If you want to argue that Sotomayor is not Hispanic, or that American-born Puerto Ricans are not Hispanic, provide reliable sources to that effect. However, I'm not arguing that it has been conclusively proven that Cardozo is not Hispanic, or that the discussion of his possibly being Hispanic should be removed from the article - I wrote most of that material in the first place, and conducted thorough research to be able to put it together. bd2412 T 00:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Ladino is the language used in Sephardic liturgy. I'm not arguing that Sotomayor isn't Hispanic, I'm arguing that you can't make an argument based on length-of-residency or absence of paper trail. Ethnicity is a self-identification - in fact, she refers to herself as Nuyorikan (do you know anything about Dakota/Lakota history?). The meta-issue here is how Sotomayor should be described. She is undisputedly the first Latina justice. She is not undisputedly the first Hispanic (there are dissenting opinions, as you have so nicely documented). So why doesn't the text say "Latina" instead of "Hispanic"? FiveRings (talk) 01:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Ask the rest of the world, which has fairly universally reported Sotomayor as the first Hispanic appointee. The arguments regarding Cardozo raise a possibility that he was Hispanic, but do not concretely establish it, and frankly never can since the details of his ancestry are lost to history. bd2412 T 02:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

But again, there is no consensus. Academic authors (and, therefore, Reliable Sources) have described Cardozo as the first Hispanic justice. From Wikipedia:NPOV: Neutral point of view: "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with the conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic found in reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic, each must be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted to be "the truth". Instead, all of the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, and not just the most popular. An article should not assert that the most popular view is the correct one, nor should this be implied by mentioning some views only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions." Seems pretty clear, yes? FiveRings (talk) 04:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Ethnicity is a social construct; thus, by definition, the "popular view" is to a large degree the correct one. It is the view that has been constructed by society. What we can do in this article is what has been done - lay out the evidence, which from a purely evidentiary point of view is rather weak and inconclusive, regarding the application of an ethnic classification. bd2412 T 04:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Once Webster changes its definition of "Hispanic" ([2]) to make the Spain/Portugal entry archaic, I'll be agreeing with you. Until then, it's Cardozo. What I'm proposing, given the work you've already done on the article, is to change the section header to Latino/Hispanic, with two sub-sections. The second one would discuss the controversy. I'm very willing to participate in a re-org, not interested in playing undo-pong. Tsavez? FiveRings (talk) 18:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't resolve the problem of the untraceability of Cardozo's ancestry. Until a definitive line of descent is shown, he is only possibly Hispanic. bd2412 T 19:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Which is sufficient for at least one reliable source to list him as the first Hispanic Justice, and for several to describe him as "Portugese". But rather than get back into a previous discussion, I'd like to move forward from content to form. Wikipedia policy is to document both viewpoints, without favoring either. The current section is close, but not quite. Renaming it to Latino/Hispanic, with two subsections, will bring it closer. FiveRings (talk) 18:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not particularly opposed to that. The issue for me is in the presentation. It is indeed possible that Cardozo was "Hispanic" (the argument is obviously much stronger than if, by contrast, one were to try to argue that Scalia is Hispanic, based on his Mediterranean heritage). However, it remains speculative both due to the lack of concrete evidence regarding his ancestry, because of his own non-observance of the culture, because of the lengthy intervals of other places of origin (e.g., was Cardozo the first Dutch Justice?) and because of the questions revolving around the applicability of the term to people of Portuguese descent. These issues compound one another - each makes the argument weaker, but none is dispositive of it. The article must simply provide an accurate representation of the strength of the evidence for each view. bd2412 T 20:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Did the split, with minimal text changes. Will come back later on to add more cites and perhaps do some reworking. FiveRings (talk) 20:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

No need for separate subheaders for "Latino" and "Hispanic" - that leaves the "Latino" section much too short. But the text is fine, in my opinion. I added a short intro on the distinction, and a note on Contreras saying that Clinton had 'betrayed' Hispanics by not appointing one to the Court. bd2412 T 21:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Not quite done with the text, but won't argue the headers issue (I was trying to avoid an "or/and" discussion). FiveRings (talk) 22:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the ambiguity of the terms makes the and/or discussion rather inevitable, so my approach is to just put it out there and work through it. bd2412 T 23:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Case law says Sephardic Jews are Hispanic

I learned I should write about this issue here, so here goes:

People are claiming Sotomayor is the first Hispanic judge simply because the main stream media is reporting that story line, and the assumption is that Wikipedia is to become another mouthpiece in that story line.

False.

Encyclopedia writers, that's us, are to use reliable sources. MSM mouthing the politically correct mantra is NOT a reliable source when compared with a judicially determined matter where the issue was raised and determined in great detail.

A Sepharidic Jewish man was determined to be Hispanic in Doctor Alfred Bennun v. Rutgers State University, 941 F.2d 154, July 25, 1991, Rehearing and Rehearing In Banc Denied Aug. 21, 1991.

We encyclopedia writers can see that is a far more reliable source. And it says a Sephardic Jew is Hispanic.

Cardozo was a Sephardic Jew. Therefore Cardozo was Hispanic.

Cardozo was on the US Supreme Court. Therefore Cardozo was Hispanic on the US Supreme Court.

Cordozo may have been the first Hispanic on the US Supreme Court.

Sotomayor is NOT the first Hispanic on the US Supreme Court.

That is not my opinion. Those are the facts based on Doctor Alfred Bennun v. Rutgers State University.

The question is, will Wikipedia use Bennun as a reliable source or will it be swamped by editors finding MSM more reliable? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 14:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I've read the case to which you linked, and it simply does not hold as a matter of law that a Sephardic Jew is Hispanic. The court specifically states in Paragraph 98 that "The district court noted Bennun's uncontradicted assertion in an affidavit that his father was a Sephardic Jew who, like all Sephardic Jews, traced his lineage to those Jews who were expelled from Spain during the Spanish Inquisition of 1492". The court of appeals states, however, that the district court, however, based its finding that Bennun is Hispanic on his birth in Argentina, his belief that he is Hispanic, identifies with and continues to adopt Spanish culture in his life and speaks Spanish in his home".

The "uncontroverted assertion" referenced above is not based on evidence presented to the Court, but on a "fact" that was not objected to in the proceeding below. In a judicial proceeding, and one party asserts in that proceeding that beef is a vegetable, or that lizards have wings, or that drinking gasoline can cure cancer, and the other party does not contest that assertion, it is established as a "fact" for the appellate court. In this case, the assertion is objectively wrong, because not even Cardozo's family claimed that its lineage traced back to Spain (rather, their tradition was only that it traced to Portugal), and because Sephardim may originate from various other Mediterranean countries.

Moreover, the appellate court ruled that "Bennun's birth in a Latin American country where Hispanic culture predominates, his immersion in Spanish ways of life and the fact that he speaks Spanish in the home also support this conclusion", which would be unnecessary if being Sephardic alone was enough. Cardozo was not born in a Latin American country, was not immersed in a Spanish way of life, and did not speak Spanish in the home, hence he would not be Hispanic in consideration of these factors. bd2412 T 15:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

What's the point, that African-Americans aren't African-American?

Let's change a few words to illustrate what was done: "Obama was not born in an African country, was not immersed in a Kenyan way of life, and did not speak Swahili in the home, hence he would not be African-American in consideration of these factors." That perfectly illustrates the political correctness in the opinion of one editor's view of the Bennun decision.

I think more people should read this case; I am certain most will come to a different conclusion. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Then you need to study the difference between "Hispanic" and "African-American". Apparently you are not aware that someone can be both African-American and Hispanic (or White and Hispanic) because the latter is an identification of culture, not of "race". The case also states this it finds the plaintiff to be Hispanic "for purposes of Title VII" only (in Paragraph 101). An Italian or a Romanian could be found to be Hispanic "for purposes of Title VII" if that person were discriminated against based on the discriminator's belief that the person was Hispanic. That certainly wouldn't make them Hispanic. Please read the case more carefully, as your analysis misrepresents what the court actually said. bd2412 T 15:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I've also read through it thoroughly. One thing appears to be absolutely clear (whether one agrees with the decision or not)- Bennun's claim of hispanicity comes through Spanish Sephardic Judaism. Cardozo always held to the belief that his Sephardism originated in Portugal (although, as it has been shown, this was family tradition and has yet to be fully substantiated). His Sephardic Jewish roots are not the point of contention; the real point of contention here is, are Portuguese Hispanic? Personally, I think that they are but accept the fact that most (but certainly not all) opinion holds that they are not. The majority of sources located backs that line of thinking. MSM, whether one likes it or not, is considered reliable for the purposes of Wikipedia regulations and that trumps ones personal feelings on the subject. Case law would certainly hold significant sway if it could be shown to support that specific line of thought. Problem is, as noted, Bennun simply does not address the Portuguese-as-Hispanic issue. Since we have no firm documentation or proof that Cardozo's ancestors came from Spain or Portugal, we have only Cardozo's own position on the subject as well as that of scholarly research, of course. Nothing in the sources that I have found claims that his ancestors came from Spain- only from Portugal or unknown for certain. All of this renders Bennun moot- all we have to go on is Cardozo's purported Portuguese ancestry- not Spanish.

Personally, that is why I prefer the adjective "unequivocal" as it is used in reference to Sotomayor being the first Hispanic Supreme Court justice (in this article as well as that of Cardozo's and should be put into Sotomayor's as well). It leaves open the fact that there is indeed a debate over Cardozo's hispanicity while acknowledging that of Sotomayor's.The Original Historygeek (talk) 20:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so it comes down to this, are Portuguese Hispanic? Looking at the record, sometimes they are, sometimes they are not. The question then becomes, why is it Wiki editors get to decide that issue one way or another? Why is it that Cordozo gets the shove? To me, it seems to be pure politics.

How about saying she is the first or second Hispanic on the Court, depending on various definitions of Justice Cardozo's background, then providing sources that lean each way?--LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

No need Sotomayor is widely considered the first and all ambiguity is already explained in detail in the section.-TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, it does not "come down" to the question of whether Portuguese are Hispanic; it comes down to the question of whether Cardozo considered himself Hispanic, spoke Spanish, participated in Spanish culture, and it also comes down to the question of whether Cardozo's ancestry can actually be reliably traced to Spain by anything more substantial than "family legend". bd2412 T 12:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

He "considered himself" to be Iberian, as the term "Hispanic" wasn't in common use as an ethnic descriptor at the time (sort of like "African American" vs. "Negro"). Webster's definition of "Hispanic" is here:[3]. But this argument will never be resolved. So the issue is, how to refer to Sotomayor in a way that doesn't violate WP guidelines on unresolved arguments. She can be described as "Latino" without any issue of appearing to favor one opinion over the other. Phrases like "Widely considered" and "Unequivocally" are still problematic.FiveRings (talk) 17:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

All we know for sure is that Cordozo is a Shepardic Jew of Portuguese decent, therefore he would be more accuratly be discribed as "Lusitanic". Anymore discription beyond that would be pure speculation becuase we can not trace his personal family history any further. I say keep the article(s) as is with Sotomayor as the first hispanic with brief explanation of Cordozo. There is nothing wrong with leaving this question open or leaving room for ambiguity. As wikipedians it is our job to record, not to solve. -TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

See Webster's definition of Hispanic [4] FiveRings (talk) 19:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

That is more representive of the historical definition. The modern day definition tends to exclude Portugal (see wikt:hispanic). -TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

We do not in fact know "for sure" that Cardozo was of Portuguese descent. That is speculation which has never been documented. bd2412 T 20:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

And that's the big problem. In any case, I agree with TriiipleThreat- keep the article with Sotomayor as first hispanic with the brief notation of Cardozo.The Original Historygeek (talk) 21:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

That's wacky. Sephardic Jews are Hispanic practically by definition. There's POV by some editors here. Circumstantial evidence of this is wording like this: "I say keep the article(s) as is with Sotomayor as the first hispanic with brief explanation of Cordozo. There is nothing wrong with leaving this question open or leaving room for ambiguity." Keeping her as the first Hispanic is simply not "leaving this question open or leaving room for ambiguity."

When combined with the clear political advantage of claiming to have appointed the first Hispanic Justice, even though false due to Cardozo and possibly the Alberto Gonzales debacle, I find that the continued effort to claim Sotomayor is the "first" Hispanic Justice, even if promoted by multiple media sources similarly motivated, is nothing short of POV.

Besides, is there anything in the world wrong with being the second Hispanic appointed? Is that some kind of problem? She IS the second Hispanic Justice on the Court. I see the reasons to claim she is the first, but they are largely political in nature and should have nothing to do with Wikipedia, truth, justice, and the American Way.

The resolution is to "leave this question open or leave room for ambiguity," but calling her the first does not do that. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Calling Sotomayor the second seems even more biased as she is widely considered the first and Portuguese are generally excluded from the contemporary meaning of hispanic.-TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I did not say calling her the second was the resolution. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 13:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Referring to Sotomayor as either the first OR the second Hispanic justice would be POV. The solution is to refer to her as the first Latino/Latina justice. This avoids the question of whether or not Latino is now the same as Hispanic (maybe true in the US, but not in Europe, and that's a whole other WP style issue). It also avoids the ancestry question (acceptable level of proof for some sources, not for others). And so on. This article is the place to document the argument. Other articles should refer to her as Latino. FiveRings (talk) 03:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Some sources

I found these on Google Scholar, searching for "Supreme Court composition." I'll let you know if I'm able to get more involved.

By the way, should there be a section on "ideology," or is that not a demographic term?

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2132106?seq=1

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2960194?seq=1

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1961370?seq=3

Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 01:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the resources, but I would definitely not consider ideology to be a demographic term. It's hard enough to pin down someone's religion and socioeconomic status! bd2412 T 02:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

First sentence

"The demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States have been raised as an issue since the Court was established in 1789." I'm really not a fan of this sentence. Raised as an issue by whom? In what context? And the sentence doesn't define the topic. Rewrite suggestions anyone?--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Good point - how about this:

The demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States encompass the gender, ethnic, religious, geographic, and economic backgrounds of the 110 Justices appointed to the Supreme Court. Certain of these characteristics have been raised as an issue since the Court was established in 1789.

Cheers! bd2412 T 03:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Other content

This is material that was in the List of Roman Catholic Justices of the Supreme Court that was summarily deleted. This content might be useful, but evidently offends the powers that be who have chosen too put it into a memory hole.

Some of this content might be useful. I have no desire to get into a p***ing match with a skunk, nor do I desire to bring a knife to a gun fight. Evidently they have more power than I, and this is about naked power untrammeled by promises or rules.

Here is the content that I think could be put into the article. Maybe they will deign to put it in. Maybe they won't. I won't

Religion has historically been a factor in the appointment and confirmation of nominees to the United States Supreme Court. To be sure, the impact of religion, race, and gender on appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court. Their impact as a factor in presidential decisions is controversial. To understand them, political and historical contexts need to be explored. Therefore, pundits have attempted to analyze, by groups or as members of groups, appointments of Catholics, Jews, blacks and women. Ostensibly, this is to explore "a history of decision-making based on the recognition of specific groups." Interviews with seven Court members address the question of whether "representative" factors should play a role in nominating justices.

Such analyses have been subject to criticism. Indeed, there is real disagreement as to what, if any, effect religious affiliation has on judicial performance.

There are those who strongly believe that demographic considerations should be no consideration at all in the selection process.

That there have been thirteen Catholics as members of the Supreme Court in its more than 200 year history is a fact. Historically, only one Catholic was on the court at a time (with the exception of White/McKenna): there was a "tradition" of a so-called "Catholic seat."

In contrast to historical patterns, we have gone from a "Catholic seat" to a "Catholic court." The reasons for that are subject to debate, and are a matter of intense public scrutiny.

More interestingly, that the majority of the Court is now Catholic, and that appointments of Catholics has become accepted (and preferred) in the past two decades, represents an historical 'sea change.' Indeed, it has fostered accusations that the court has become "a Catholic boys club" (particularly as the Catholics chosen tend to be politically conservative) and a wish that non-Catholics be nominated.

I have been told that this is "original research" and is not up to their standards.

Notes

Good luck to you all. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 16:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Stan

Note - the actual title was List of Roman Catholic United States Supreme Court justices, which has now been restored as a redirect to the corresponding section of this article. I've merged in what I think is appropriate to this article. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)