I remarked in What chance a WASP man for Supreme Court? that the taboo on acknowledging the damage done by racial spoils-seeking to the group which founded and did most to build America might be lifting. The reason for this shift is becoming clear: drunk with triumph, the victors are uninhibitedly celebrating.
The New York Times has followed CBSNews.com's example with Stevens, the Only Protestant on the Supreme Court By Adam Liptak April 9th 2010.
...religion plays much less of a role in everyday life than it did 50 or 100 years ago...said Geoffrey R. Stone, a law professor at the University of Chicago. Adding a Protestant to the court, he said, would not bring an important element to its discussions.
Now it is very likely, given the hiring proclivities of the University of Chicago Law School and his professional associations, that Professor Stone rarely has dealings with anyone of Protestant background - let alone any who actually understand their heritage.
So his contemptuous approval of
a court without a single member of the nation's majority religion.
in the NYT's phrase, might just stem from ignorance rather than bigotry.
But the reality is that Stone, as his resume and journalism demonstrate, is another example of that deplorable tribe of law professors who have used their privileged locations to advance their political and in the case of Stone, religious, prejudices.
Unfortunately the 20th Century destruction of the Constitution by a power-grabbing legislating Judiciary has made this a very rewarding occupation.
What Professor Stone means by "not bringing an important element" to the Supreme Court discussions is not bringing an element that he does not want to be heard.
Credit is due to the NYT for pointing out in their story that Professor Stone recently had a different opinion about the role of religious alignment at the Supreme Court
...in 2007 when he wrote an opinion article in The Chicago Tribune after the Supreme Court upheld the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act in Gonzales v. Carhart.
"Here is a painfully awkward observation: All five justices in the majority in Gonzales are Roman Catholic" Professor Stone wrote. "The four justices who are not all followed clear and settled precedent...Given the nature of the issue, the strength of the relevant precedent, and the inadequacy of the court's reasoning, "the question of religion", he went on, "is too obvious to ignore."
The Supreme Court is effectively America's senior legislative branch. That is why selection has become so crudely political and is so important. Religion and ethnicity are very closely interwoven. I could just as well have asked "Why not a white Southern man for Supreme Court?"
Most likely what Obama is about to propose will further validate Peter Brimelow's comment at the end of his 2009 CPAC article.
In effect, the historic American nation is faced with a minority occupation government.
Ask Professor Stone why he despises the American Protestant tradition.