{See references to religion and church-state issues from today's hearing in the updates at the bottom of this post!}
Today begins questioning by Senators and there's really no telling ahead of time when, if or how questions about religious liberty protections may come up.
One thing we can be sure to hear about today though – probably early and often – is the issue of bias, background and the influence (or not) of life experience on judicial outcome. There may not be a single person during the hearing today that casts that issue in religious terms (If only she had said "A wise Catholic woman…."), but it still has resonance in that context as well, and in many ways is more well-tread ground in American political conversation: Can a person of the {insert religion} faith be committed to the Constitution?
It's a tribute to the fact that the country has answered that question in the affirmative that the Court's majority Catholic makeup hasn't been more of an issue than it has. No religion disqualifies a person from serving as Judge or elected official. But there is another side to the question: whether life experience, including experience with diverse religious viewpoints, concerns, etc., can play a role in preparing a judge to anticipate and empathize with the needs and perspective of those seeking justice. I would suggest that in matters of hearing church-state claims, such understanding – wherever it comes from – couldn't hurt.
Even though gender and ethnicity may get all the microphone time today in terms of that discussion, life experience and empathy may encompass many things… Updates from today's hearing, as religion references arise, below.
UPDATES:
The Committee is done for the day. Round 1 will continue tomorrow.
Senator Graham (R-SC) – in probably the most contentious questioning thus far – brings out a golden oldie, complaining that Supreme Court decisions have found "broad provisions" in the Constitution for certain rights despite their not being literally spelled out in the document. He says for example that there is "no written statement [in the Constitution] that you can't voluntarily pray in school…", implying that the Court has found otherwise.
Senator Feinstein (D-CA) refers to Justice Scalia's "rebuke" of other Justices for over-turning a precedent in the Hein case, without – he argued – acknowledging that they are doing so. The Hein case rejected taxpayer standing for plaintiffs attempting to challenge faith-based funding of the Bush Administration.
Senator Hatch (R-UT) asks Judge Sotomayor if she believes the freedom of religion (along with other First Amendment freedoms) is "fundamental" in the legal sense. She responds yes, to the extent that those rights have been incorporated against the states.
(View Day 1 updates here.)
