Written by Don Byrd
In a fascinating symposium for Moment Magazine, a handful of scholars and news reporters covering the Supreme Court pondered the question of whether the religion of Supreme Court justices impacts their jurisprudence. Lyle Deniston, Emily Bazelon, Dahila Lithwick and several others weighed in with some interesting perspective.
Here is a sampling:
Lyle Deniston:
In the past, Supreme Court justices were highly reluctant to allow their own values to come into play when ruling on religious matters. But more and more often, this is no longer the case. I’m not suggesting that this is inappropriate, but there used to be a studied effort to avoid bringing one’s own religious values into Court discussions. Personal religious identities now have a growing impact on Supreme Court decisions.
Stephen Wermiel:
It’s not that the Catholics or Jews on the Court want to proselytize the American people: it’s that they are much more willing to be a product of their religion when they approach cases. . . .
The most stark example is the Court’s recent decision in the Town of Greece case. Because the justices in the majority are themselves to some degree religious people, they seem to be somewhat insensitive to what the impact of prayer at the start of a town council meeting might be on people who are less religious or who are not religious or who have a different religion. The Court seemed to take a “no harm, no foul” approach. They think: Why does this offend anybody or bother anybody to have a small prayer at the start of a meeting? And I think that’s who they are. That’s part of their background and part of their traditions.
Emily Bazelon:
It doesn’t make sense to think of the Court as Olympian and objective. The justices are just people, informed by personal background and history. Religion is a component of that.
Dahlia Lithwick:
You have to be of a certain background and privilege to believe that religion is fundamentally universal and uplifting. Religion can be messy and horrible and isolating, and Jews and religious minorities know that. Justice Kagan’s dissent [in Town of Greece] speaks to that—it could only have been written by someone who’s been part of a religious minority for her whole life.
Read the whole thing!
