What about Posner, Kozinski or Epstein?

Better Larry Tribe.

What would make Reagan appointees worse than Larry Tribe?

bart - An atheist like Posner is no good; Epstein is hated and feared by the Dems, not so good on social issues for the Reps, and too old; Kozinski would be good. Still, in these days of political contention, someone who's his own man is unlikely to be the top choice. Divided we fall; a reliable and predictable judge is more likely to be trusted.

Posner is not only an atheist, but a utilitarian, which is an anti-Constitutional philosophy. So he's double-bad.

An atheist and a utilitarian, who is clearly unimpressed by big government. What could be bad?

Peter Singer is an atheist utilitarian. 'Nuff said.

A guy who talks about 'speciesism' ain't a utilitarian.

Conservative justices are praised when their reading of the law happens to agree with a liberal shibboleth. Is the reverse ever true? Nah.

Better Larry Tribe? Larry Tribe is pond scum. What or who could he be better than?

bart - Singer is just a utilitarian who counts animal utility as much as human utility. Since neither is observable, who's to disprove him? He's useful for displaying how absurd materialist utilitarianism is, carried to its logical conclusion.

Larry Tribe? well if we're going to play like that.

Remember the lawyer who represented Katherine Harris, as Sec. of State of Florida, before the Supreme Court and couldn't remember anybody's name. Mistook Stevens for Brennan or something. That's the man.

Singer is [...] useful for displaying how absurd materialist utilitarianism is, carried to its logical conclusion.

What isn't absurd, when carried to the extreme ?
There's nothing "logical" about it.

All Singer proves is that fools come in all flavors.

The logic is precise. If you aren't useful to me your life can't mean anything to me.

pj

Just for the sake of us atheists, can you expand a little more on why an atheist can't be on the Supreme Court? Given that there is no religious test for office, per the Constitution.

Robert:

There's no religious test only in the sense that there's no sectarian test. You can't uphold the Constitution if you don't think the liberty of the Declaration is a Blessing.

Robert: Per Chuck Schumer, an atheist couldn't be rejected for his religion, but could be for his "deeply held beliefs"...

Besides oj's obviously fallacious reasoning, what is the deeply held belief of athiests that would disqualify them?

Sheesh, Robert, I was making a joke. The Democrats made only the feeblest attempts to hide the fact that their opposition to Pryor's nomination was solely due to his Catholicism. Perhaps as a holder of a distinctly minority religious viewpoint this precedent should bother you...

Robert:

If you don't believe that dignity and rights come from God and precede the state you can't be trusted with power.

BTW: Rehnquist joined the court in 72. Earl Warren resigned in 69. Rehnquist was known for his lone dissents on the Burger court.

Athiests can't be on the court because no president would nominate an athiest. Otherwise, an athiest who was a democrat, and thus committed to interpreting the Constitution as it was intended when ratified, would make a perfectly adequate justice. As a matter of pure correlation, however, a proper understanding of the constitution and atheism is a rare combination and, when it comes to the First Amendment, non-existent. Atheists have too much at stake when it comes to the First Amendment to be able to interpret it properly.

Robert - (a) Empirically, we've tried atheists and they've failed us badly. The worst judging of the last fifty years has been perpetrated by unbelievers. (b) It's sensible to think that atheists, who generally reject the Bible's rule-based morality in favor of a calculational utilitarian style of moral decision-making, would also have difficulty respecting the Constitution's clear rule-based framework and would tend to substitute for it various calculational balancing tests. This process of substitution has already progressed very far and is the main source of our Constitutional problems. Biblical believers are the most likely to reverse it.

"First Amendment protections for cross burnings"

You know that if there is no First Amendment protection for cross burning, why should there be any for flag burning?

Robert,

You can absolutely burn a cross on your own lawn.

pj, who are the atheists that have been tried and failed badly? I don't recall any atheists on the Supreme Court.

OJ, noone can be trusted with power, that is why we have separation of powers. What I find so amusing is this fantasy that you have that your intellectualized statement of religious principles somehow innoculates you from the temptations of corruption. The best way to judge whether a person is fit to serve on the court is his track record, not some silly theoretical connstruct which a blind kindergarten student could shoot holes through at 100 yards.

b, sorry, didn't get it. I must be getting punch-drunk.

Robert:

Yes, the precise point is that only religion provides the insight that all are corrupt.

Men don't matter, only the construct.

Robert - Numerous Supreme Court opinions demonstrate a lack of understanding of Christianity, and a rejection of Christian principles, and a hostility to Christian views (e.g. the description of Christian views as "lacking a rational basis" in several cases) are clearly inconsistent with these justices being believing Christians. Now, I suppose they could be Muslims, Hindus, or Wiccans, but I assumed they were secular unbelievers.

Wow, so we get the blame for bad Christians. If that's the way it works, then Stalin must have been a Christian, because he certainly had no idea what secular humanism is all about.

OJ, we don't put constructs on the court, we put men. Religion provides nothing that isn't accesible to reason except a nice shiny gloss.

Atheists on the Supreme Court? Ruth Ginsberg for one. Oh, declared atheists. Well, no one admits to it because they would not get on the court but the hostility to religion illustrated by Ginsberg and Souter at least proves they are non-believers.

Robert:

No, you only know they're bad because of Christianity.

Stalin's rule was perfectly rational and utilitarian, just unChristian.

Lets check the religious preference of the 5 most liberal justices:

David Souter: Episcopalian
Ruth Bader Ginsburg: Jewish
Anthony Kennedy: Roman Catholic
Byron White: Protestant
Sandra Day O'Connor: Episcopalian

Gee, no atheists, sorry. Bob, if you are correct that these justices are closet atheists, then that puts you in a dilemma, doesn't it? How are you going to screen them out if they lie about it?

Your contention that they must be atheists, because their rulings on religious matters shows hostility to religion is just ridiculous. The Wall of Separation has been a great boon to religion, and many religious people do not want to see it destroyed.

"Byron White" should read "John Paul Stevens".

Robert:

What Wall?

Quoting myself is obviously a nasty habit, but: Atheists have too much at stake when it comes to the First Amendment to be able to interpret it properly.

That's like saying gun owners have too much at stake to be able to interpret the 2nd amendment properly. Everyone has too much at stake with the 1st amendment and every other part of the constitution. A religious test by any other name is still a religious test.

Robert:

Yes, there is a religious test.

Read your Constitution.

Yes, it forbids "religious Tests." However, it is based upon a religious test.

There may be other situations in which a particular group is unable to correctly interpret the constitution because they are emotionally wedded to a particular interpretation. However, I've never met an atheist who has come to terms with the fact that the First Amendment plainly allows -- indeed, protects -- the establishment of religion.

Gee, you theo-conservatives have a funny way of interpreting the 1st Amendment. "No religious test" means "religious test", "no establishment" means "establishment".

Robert:

yes, both are sect specific. The Constitution establishes a Judeo-Christianity-based republic and requires that elected and appointed officials pass a test supporting it.

QED

1. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ...."

2. Massachusetts has an established (i.e., tax supported) church.

3. Ergo, the First Amendment expressly protects Massachusetts' established church from Congressional interference.