What difference would an atheist Supreme Court Justice make?

[Richard Masters]

Having browsed through a few Supreme Court opinions, it seems that Supreme Court Justices, for the most part, attempt to appeal to reason when writing their opinions.

Now that Justice Stevens is retiring, what difference would it make if an atheist were elected to the Supreme Court?

[Darth Rotor]

Having browsed through a few Supreme Court opinions, it seems that Supreme Court Justices, for the most part, attempt to appeal to reason when writing their opinions.

Now that Justice Stevens is retiring, what difference would it make if an atheist were elected to the Supreme Court?

One vote. He or she sits in a room (at present) with six Catholics.

Interesting dynamics, potentially.

DR

[JoeTheJuggler]

One vote. He or she sits in a room (at present) with six Catholics.

Interesting dynamics, potentially.


Pretty darn significant!

It wouldn't even require being an atheist to be significant in that context--just a strong church-state separationist.

[KingMerv00]

I'm looking for my first job in law right now...hmmm.

Replacing liberal Stevens with a liberal atheist doesn't change much. An atheist may better understand what is like to be secular in a religious country but that's about it.

[Richard Masters]

One vote. He or she sits in a room (at present) with six Catholics.

Interesting dynamics, potentially.

DR

Any concurring or dissenting opinions would certainly be interesting to read.

[rwguinn]

Having browsed through a few Supreme Court opinions, it seems that Supreme Court Justices, for the most part, attempt to appeal to reason when writing their opinions.

Now that Justice Stevens is retiring, what difference would it make if an atheist were elected to the Supreme Court?
IF they actually follow the Constitution and Law of the Land, it should make NO difference...
Right.

[INRM]

So long as he isn't overly left-wing or right-wing leaning and will interpret the Constitution as it is, reasonably speaking, I'm okay with an atheist being a Supreme Court judge.

[rjh01]

Wait until you get three more atheists then you have a majority.

Atheist - anyone who does not vote based on religious reasons.

[Ladewig]

I do not know enough about federal law to comment on the results. I do, however, consider the process of putting an atheist on the bench to be mindboggling. I cannot begin to fathom how such a person would get Senate approval. The only scenario I can picture is one in which the judge is a devout Christian and after taking office has a change of heart and announces his or her atheism.

[Puppycow]

I don't think it would make much of a difference. At least in theory it shouldn't because none of the justices are supposed to let their religion enter into it. What would matter a lot more is the atheist justice's judicial philosophy and reasoning. He/she could take any position on any matter based on a philosophy or reasoning that has nothing to do with atheism or religion.

There are atheists all over the political spectrum from right to left and everywhere in between.

[DC]

God would be pissed

[Brown]

One possible effect might be that the hypotheticals posed druing oral argument might change, in that it would be bad manners to indicate that atheists are villains if one is sitting on the Court:As used in a conventional sense, "atheist" is still used today to mean "a bad person."

Case in point: On March 2 of this year [2005], the Ten Commandments cases were argued to the Supreme Court. Atheists were trotted out as the booger men, the party poopers, the trouble-makers.

Justice Kennedy: "This is a classic avert your eyes. If an atheist walked by, he can avert his eyes, he can think about something else." Why assume that those who object are atheists? Could not Jews object? Or Hindus? Or Native Americans? Or Christians who feel that the government has no business promoting religious belief? Surely stinking atheists aren't the only ones who would object.

Justice Scalia asked whether a state could erect a "Religion is the Foundations of our Institutions" monument, but remarked "But there are atheists who disagree with that intensely." Why atheists? Why not historians? Why not judges? Why not constitutional scholars? Certainly atheists are not the only ones who would assert that such a monument is preposterous.

[Iamme]

So long as he isn't overly left-wing or right-wing leaning and will interpret the Constitution as it is, reasonably speaking, I'm okay with an atheist being a Supreme Court judge.

The right to bear arms. Has that been conclusively interpretted as it is? Don't some believe the right to bear arms was a subset article for the militia?, being semi-coloned(I think) in with the mention of the militia? Who 'interpretted' that assault rifles were to be excluded? And then uninterpretted it later.