Today’s Non-Story: A Protestant needed on the Supreme Court

Occasionally people in the media try to make a case for what turns out to be a mirage.  It happens  with liberal media figures sometimes when they try to write about how conservatives feel.  I assume it happens the other way, too, but the (non) issue I’m discussing this week and the first example that came to mind were both concocted by liberals.

The example that occurred to me was when people in the media actually thought Rudy Giuliani had a shot at winning the Republican nomination for the presidency in 2008.  The media kept trying to make him a front runner even though his marital issues and views on abortion turned off the majority of Republicans.

This time, there are articles being written about the retirement of Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens.  President Obama will need to nominate a replacement, so people are wondering what the characteristics of the new person will be.  Some media figures have noted that Stevens is the only Protestant on the High Court, so some columnists are wondering if the replacement needs to be a Protestant too.

For the record, I’m a Protestant, and I’m pretty serious about my faith.  But I had no idea what the religious make up of the Supreme Court was, and I’m sure this puts me in with the majority of Americans.

Furthermore, the only people who would possibly be strong advocates for getting a new Protestant now would be people who are religious conservatives.  Stevens is a political liberal.  Religious conservatives are going to tend to want a political conservative–Protestant, Catholic, or Jewish.  Conservatives aren’t going to lament the loss of Stevens; they’d rather have a Jewish conservative than a Protestant liberal.

It will be politics, not religious affiliation, that determines whether or not people are happy with the next member of the Supreme Court.

So move along; there’s nothing to see here.