I was thinking of a set of exceptions I know personally. As I work in an involuntary psychiatric facility, we have a fair bit of interaction with lawyers, and more with psychologists – who I think are drawn from a similar pool socially and intellectually. Few of the attorneys or psychologists are observant of any faith (though most people of my generation were raised with at least the husks of something, so they have some knowledge). The minority who are observant show some surprises in their area of practice. They seem indeed to be cafeteria style as regards their faith as a whole – but for the central ethical issues of their profession, they are more orthodox in their faith. I hypothesize that these are the areas that are always on their minds, so encountering challenges from their faith at weekly worship causes them to actually think things through, rather than just accept the standard beliefs of their secular peer group.

Of course, the greater rationalisers also come out of that group, which causes damage. But I think observance slowly creates something closer to orthodoxy, however eccentricly it may be displayed – though only in the areas that people actually do the thoughtful work.

1952-1953: Clerk For Justice Robert Jackson, U.S. Supreme Court and head prosecutor at Nuremburg
1953-1969: Private Practice in Phoenix, AZ
1969-1971: Assistant USAG, Office of Legal Counsel
1953-1954: Private Practice in Phoenix, AZ
1954-1955: Private Practice in Phoenix, AZ
1955-1956: Private Practice in Phoenix, AZ
1956-1957: Private Practice in Phoenix, AZ
1957-1958: Private Practice in Phoenix, AZ
1958-1959: Private Practice in Phoenix, AZ
1959-1960: Private Practice in Phoenix, AZ
1960-1961: Private Practice in Phoenix, AZ
1961-1962: Private Practice in Phoenix, AZ
1962-1963: Private Practice in Phoenix, AZ
1963-1964: Private Practice in Phoenix, AZ
1964-1965: Private Practice in Phoenix, AZ
1965-1966: Private Practice in Phoenix, AZ
1966-1967: Private Practice in Phoenix, AZ
1967-1968: Private Practice in Phoenix, AZ
1968-1969: Private Practice in Phoenix, AZ
1969-1971: Assistant USAG, Office of Legal Counsel

Kagan’s

1986-88: Clerk for various judges
1989-91: Associate in Private Practice
1991-97: non-practicing academic with minimal publication record
1995-99: various government positions
1999-03: non-practicing academic with minimal publication record at Harvard
2003-09: administrator at Harvard
2009-10: Solicitor General of the United States

Gee, this straw man stuff is fun!

Observant? Well, that helps, but many cafeteria Catholics are observant. By orthodox I mean one that accepts the 5 non-negotiables: 1. abortion is not allowed, 2. euthanasia is not allowed, 3. fetal stem cell research is not allowed, 4. human cloning is not allowed, 5. homosexual marriage is not allowed.

Disagree with the above tenets of ‘orthodox’ Catholicism, and you are cafeteria. We have a LOT of area in the Church where a variety of positions and opinions may be held, but not in the areas above. Scalia I would be pretty sure is orthodox. Thomas is a convert, and we knowledgeable converts are an orthodox group, so I would be pretty sure that he is one too. The others – I don’t know, but people who fully accept the teachings of the Church are certainly not a majority of those who call themselves Catholic.

I can probably count on one hand those I know that accept the authority of the Church in these matters.

Given that, I would suggest that others on the Court will vote as a Protestant/non-aligned Christian would. Which is to say, you can’t really predict it.

But the law school issue does remind us, as if anyone reading this blog needed reminding, that leftist concern for diversity is only for different looking people thinking the same.

I can see, perhaps, why we may not have any justices from, say, the University of Idaho (Sarah Palin’s alma mater so all goodthinkers know the school can’t be any good). But graduates of the University of Chicago, Cal, or dare I mention the University of Michigan that in a weak moment gave me a law degree? Only two law schools produce people fit to be justices?

And since some people claim they prize diversity, how about someone who is, perhaps, an evangelical Protestant. We have a lot of them; don’t they deserve representation. Further, since disparate numbers are taken as discrimination ipso facto, less than three percent of the US population is Jewish but the number of justices who are Jewish far exceeds that. Do Protestants have a discrimination claim?

Kindly explain that objectively, MDL. An explanation consisting of how very much she must have impressed the academic elites will not suffice for objectivity.

She has better credentials that Miers and Sotomayor, I’ll grant.

As to the characterization of the conservative justices as being far to the right, that depends entirely on where one draws the center line. I find that liberals tend to do that on the basis of their impressions rather than on hard data or philosophical argument.

Their feminist dean has all the respect for facts and logic that one expects from a committed feminist

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/harvard-law-vs-free-inquiry

and

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/05/026256.php

You should note that Kagan has more experience than William Rehnquist.

Rehnquist’s

1952-1953: Clerk For Justice Robert Jackson
1953-1969: Private Practice in Phoenix, AZ
1969-1971: Assistant USAG, Office of Legal Counsel

Kagan’s

1986-87: Clerk for Judge Abner Mikva, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit
1987-88: Clerk for Justice Thurgood Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court
1989-91: Associate in Private Practice, Williams & Connolly
1991-97: Assistant Professor and Professor, University of Chicago Law School (1991-94 as assistant professor)
1995-96: Associate White House Counsel
1997-99: Deputy Assistant to the President, Domestic Policy Council
1999-01: Visiting Professor, Harvard Law School
2001-03: Professor, Harvard Law School
2003-09: Dean of Harvard Law School
2009-10: Solicitor General of the United States

The real issue with Kagan is that she is an unknown. Since I am a ‘liberal’ I feel she may not be left enough. If at all. It would be nice to have a liberal on the court who is far left as Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts are to the right. Or heck, someone as far left as the Warren Court, which was a generation ago!