Have you made a plan to vote? You can check your voter registration and polling place here.
As the lightning-fast confirmation of Judge Amy Coney Barrett proceeded in the Senate last week, Public Seminar published an article by political scientists Peter Rutland and Şener Aktürk that asked: “Why Are There No Protestants on the Supreme Court?”
Rutland and Aktürk do not advocate on behalf of Protestant representation as a positive good. Instead, they find it to be a curious fact that in a majority Protestant country where the other branches of government trend Protestant, that SCOTUS has now, for some time, been exclusively populated with justices who were raised Catholic or Jewish. As they argue, religious minorities have a special stake in the court, a fact that might then shape career trajectories for legal scholars.
Two other perspectives on the religion question appeared last week, and were forwarded to us by Rutland and Aktürk:
Nomi Stoltzenberg, “Religious identity and Supreme Court justices – a brief history.” (The Conversation, October 19, 2020)
Charlotte Allen, “Barrett’s confirmation would seal a Catholic court supermajority. It’s all about timing.” (Los Angeles Times, October 23, 2020)
Other top hits on the Supreme Court from Public Seminar include:
Eileen Hunt Botting, “Amy Coney Barrett’s Fall from Grace: A Rose Garden superspreader event puts in doubt the Supreme Court nominee’s commitment to the right to life.” (October 8, 2020)
Claire Potter, “I Am Ignoring Amy Coney Barrett: And you should too — because she will be confirmed, Trump is trolling us with this nomination, and we have an election to win.” (September 28, 2020)
Ajay Singh Chaudhary, “The Legitimacy of the Supreme Court? The system is working and that is the problem.” (October 8, 2020)
And last week’s most popular read?
Marci Shore, “On the Uses and Disadvantages of Historical Comparisons for Life: Vom Nutzen und Nachteil historischer Vergleiche für das Leben.” (October 19, 2020)