Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has announced his retirement. Indications are we will have another summer confirmation hearing. There will be plenty of time between now and then to speculate on his replacement, and to look back at Stevens' long career on the bench.
Already though there is a disturbing sub-story – like earlier this week from NPR – that no longer having a Protestant among the nine Justices is somehow significantly concerning in itself. So, just to hopefully open the debate with a clear statement: no Supreme Court justice should be appointed or denied based on his or her religious beliefs or background. Religious liberty will be best served not when denominations are equally represented inside the nation's highest court, but when that court protects the religion of all Americans equally through the law.
A church-state debate that focuses on potential nominees' judicial philosophy and record toward doing just that, as opposed to their personal religious qualifications, would be a welcome development.
[UPDATE: From the BJC:
“Justice Stevens has been a friend of church-state separation,” said Baptist Joint Committee Executive Director J. Brent Walker. “His Establishment Clause jurisprudence has always been strong, having stood uniformly against government-sponsored religious speech and government endorsement of religion.”
“However, his willingness to require – or sometimes even to permit – the accommodation of religion under the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause has been lacking,”]
