I deleted a half written comment along these lines. Catholics and Jews have been rationalizing dogma for so long...it's a natural and short step to law.

@govols

I think you said it better than I did.

Having been raised and educated under Catholic traditions I have an affinity for Jews. They tend to enjoy as I do making everything as complicated as possible.

I didn’t suggest anything. I’m merely wondering why approximately 78% of American faiths, including atheism and Protestantism are not represented on the Supreme Court? After all, they are responsible for interpreting the law of the land on behalf of all citizens. It seems odd that it is dominated by 2 minorities.

And, no I am not antisemitic, nor do I hate Catholics.

@WorldSigh I'm all for suggestions, don't get me wrong. I'm not religious, but perhaps wanting people with actual morals interpreting the law could be a possibility. Atheists are known for being corrupted by their egos, whose studies didn't leave any time for personal exploration or emotional introspection. So yeah, I wouldn't want atheists in positions like that either. Just my two cents.

@A1fredo
Interesting points, I still wonder why the 43% of Americans who are Protestant are not represented?

@WorldSigh Does that mean 57% of Protestant Americans are represented? I think you mean 100% of Protestant Americans are not represented since there are zero Protestant SC Justices. It would more correctly be stated 43% of Americans who are Protestants have no representation. But really is it Americans that should have representation or Protestants? Or Catholics or Jews? Sounds like an infiltration of identity politics.

@WorldSigh I have to agree with Frank. Does it matter? The whole world is going to hell, and that doesn't really seem like the most important issue right now...

@FrankZeleniuk Thanks for pointing out my screw up! I’ve fixed it.

@FrankZeleniuk
Some people might consider it a bit more important than identity politics.
Considering the fact that what Protestants have been protesting for over 500 years is the authoritarian papacy, and the Catholic Church is responsible for untold tens of millions of Protestant deaths via burning at the stake, the rack, and warfare it could be of concern to certain groups in the US that their Supreme Court is now controlled by a group of people whose number one loyalty (assuming they are devout) is to the Pope.

@FrankZeleniuk, @A1fredo
I merely asked if it seemed odd?

@WorldSigh Nobody has been protesting past their own lifetimes. You can't see it that way. It's unfair to others. We all start our burdens and privileges once we're born. Our parents' shouldn't be passed down onto us, right? Either way, still, I respect your religion, but it shouldn't be trying to grab positions on power this way. Is this what it is about? I don't think religions should be about taking over, or popularity, or influence, and such...

@WorldSigh Yes, I am sorry if I seem too strong when replying. Just giving my opinion.

@A1fredo
Of course, no one should be punished for the crimes of their ancestors. However, the Catholic Church (not individual Catholic people) is still the same church. Can you understand why some Protestant people might be a bit apprehensive that their Supreme Court is controlled by Catholics who are supposed to be loyal to the Pontiff?

@WorldSigh Surely they as qualified Judges are able to prevent their personal beliefs from affecting their decision-making processes regarding their job. That's the very minimum I would expect from somebody there, right? So I don't think you should worry about that.... I don't. I'm not a Catholic or Jew either.

@A1fredo
Definitely, that’s how the system is supposed to function. On the other hand, we live in what the ancient Chinese curse describes as "interesting times".

Anyway, I was looking at the composition of the SCOTUS with the addition of Trump’s latest pick and it struck me as bizarre that the majority of justices are Catholics. I would have thought it would by chance be a mix of many different faiths. I wondered if anyone else thought it was strange. Apparently, no one else does? Ok, my question has been answered.

@WorldSigh "Some people might consider it a bit more important than identity politics."

Yes, of course, like some would consider systemic racism a bit more important than identity politics.

"...it could be of concern to certain groups in the US that their Supreme Court is now controlled by a group of people whose number one loyalty (assuming they are devout) is to the Pope."

It is a concern when you are talking about groups, not individuals. Other "groups" may express a concern because they have a vested interest as a particular group. This is the "collective" mindset that has been made prevalent in western society today and is one of the cracks in a free society. Government is supposed to treat all individuals "equally". It is supposed to protect the weakest in society and the weakest is the individual. He would be subject to all sorts of "groups" who can overwhelm, subdue or destroy him. The idea of the US Constitution was the freedom of the individual from that fear. Identity politics is all about accessing state sanctioned privilege for defined victims of "society". Being a member of a minority group grants you some group privileges so if you wear the label you are ok but don't try and be an individual and expect to have the same privilege. Like, if you aren't voting for Joe Biden you are somehow no longer Black.

Hopefully, Justices appointed to the Supreme Court deal with the Constitution and laws enacted by Congress, and I know some laws need to be struck down as unconstitutional but they are laws for now. Constitutional Justices whatever their religion or race would more likely be fair and equitable to the individual as opposed to a politically ideologically partisan one. I don't believe enough care was taken in the past regarding this. Ginsberg was an obvious feminist and a lot of her views favored that group of women. The percentage of women who were not feminists were not represented but what is important is if individual women were supported regardless of the fact they were feminists or not.