A Roberts-Blocking Idea For Dems?

The Democratic Party these days is the leading institutional voice of “diversity.” (And not only a voice, since, as discussed here, it practices what it preaches by imposing quotas for delegates to its national conventions.) Perhaps the Dems’ devotion to “diversity” can give them what they’ve been frantically searching for of late: an argument against the nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court.

As David Brooks has just reminded us, if Roberts is confirmed he would be the fourth Catholic on the Court, joining Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy. This, of course, would make Catholics seriously “overrepresented,” since with Roberts they would make up over 44% of the Court’s members but only 22% of the U.S. population.

Turning to the world at large, the way some justices turn to the law of other nations when they interpret the Constitution, doesn’t help, since Catholics make up 17.2% of the world population. Jews, who make up over 22% of the Court’s members but only 2% of the U.S. population, are of course also seriously “overrepresented,” but it might be regarded as anti-semitic to point that out.

Can the Dems in good conscience (and we know they have highly developed consciences) allow the current imbalance to be made worse failing to block the elevation of yet another Catholic? Do they really want to participate in the continuing discriminatory exclusion of Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Mormons, Muslims, etc., etc., who have no members on the Court? In the old days the Dems might have regarded “taking religion into account” as unconstitutional or, worse, “divisive,” but their eagerness to take race into account at every opportunity suggests they’ve outgrown that concern.

Oh, wait. Brooks also reminds us that “[m]ost of the main Democrats on the Judiciary Committee are Catholics … (Kennedy, Biden, Durbin, Leahy).” Maybe the Dems aren’t really so concerned with “diversity” after all.

UPDATE: Does Sen. Durbin Believe In A Religious Test For Supreme Court Nominees?

In today’s Los Angelses Times, George Washington Univ. law professor Jonathan Turley describes a meeting between Sen. Durbin and John Roberts in which Durbin asked a question that may imply he doubts whether practicing Roman Catholics are qualified to be judges.

According to two people who attended the meeting, Roberts was asked by Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) what he would do if the law required a ruling that his church considers immoral. Roberts is a devout Catholic and is married to an ardent pro-life activist. The Catholic Church considers abortion to be a sin, and various church leaders have stated that government officials supporting abortion should be denied religious rites such as communion. (Pope Benedict XVI is often cited as holding this strict view of the merging of a person’s faith and public duties).

Renowned for his unflappable style in oral argument, Roberts appeared nonplused and, according to sources in the meeting, answered after a long pause that he would probably have to recuse himself.

Durbin’s response is not reported, but Turley thinks this is a big deal.