Bruce pointed out in a comment that confirmation of Kagan would result in there being no Protestants on the Supreme Court, something I was planning to cover today in any case. Our constitution says that there shall be no test of religion for any office in our government, so that takes care of that.
Except that we do have such a test, of course, for the office of President. It is necessary that candidates for that office pass a Q&A administered by the "pastor" of the "flavor of the year" right wing Christianist sect, and that such interrogation be carried out publicly and in front of an audience of that "pastor's" faithful. In 2008 that interrogation was held on national television by a particularly slimy buffoon named Rick Warren, and it was one of the most humiliating moments in our nation's history.
I still have not figured out why either candidate was willing to submit himself to that interrogation, and it is my opinion that such willingness rendered both of them unfit for the office they were seeking.
You have a spelling error in the title of this post, sir.....
ReplyDeleteMy comment was merely to point the Protestant fact out, implying that someone is bound to make an issue of it. Just because there is a clause against something doesn't mean someone /group will try to make something out of it. Is it right or appropriate? No. But it happens.
I don't remember the part about a pastor of a right wing sect and the candidates needing to pass him. Perhaps you can refresh my memory of that? I do well remember the pastor Wright debacle, which Mr. Obama seemed to handle pretty well.
And I don't think I share the "unfit for office" comment you are making. Was that part of the campaign process distasteful? yes, for them as well as many voters. It would have been refreshing for one or both to say "I don't need to do that, and I won't".