How Are Atheists Reacting to SCOTUS Nominee Sonia Sotomayor?

This puts atheist and secular church/state watchdog groups in a tough position: Should they support her or issue no statement at all?

This ignores the third possibility of our opposing her nomination. I don’t know of any reason why we should; I just want to point out that the option logically exists.

Church/state issues are tricky because they don’t fit the standard modern-Liberal (pro-state, anti-individual) vs. modern-Conservative (pro-plutocracy, anti-individual) divide of the Court. Since the Liberal end is also more secular, they’re liable to overlook their more statist bias to defend religious liberty. Since the Conservative end is anti-individualistic predominantly as a means to inflict “morality” on us, they’re liable to overlook their general distrust of the state in order to support governmental religious displays (in much the same sense that they’re willing to overlook this distrust when it comes to government-supplied corporate welfare).

However, we should remember that all liberty is essentially anti-state, anti-plutocracy, and pro-individual, so counting on either of these factions to uphold our liberties (as a deontological principle) is a dangerous strategy at best; see the Raich case as a poignant example of how the court’s hyper-statist version of “liberalism” differs from the public conception of it.

Due to the historical deviation from general principle on the issue, we’re probably better off with as liberal a justice as possible on church/state. However, Obama’s recent attempts to move U.S. economic policy in a more fascist direction (in the sense of a strong partnership between the state and big business, not in the sense of “I don’t know what this word means so I use it to condemn whatever I dislike”) may challenge the conventional wisdom, as the Big Government/Big Business partnership appeals to both the liberal pro-statist and conservative pro-plutocracy mindsets. This fusion could throw the old distinctions out the window (and doubtlessly create new ones along lines hard to predict in advance) and lead to some hairy situations (e.g., just as the executive-legislative distinction was used to crush church/state concerns in Hein v. FFRF, it’s plausible that a state-corporate distinction could become significant in the future, especially in response to further neoliberal-style monopoly privatization of state functions).

Should it matter that there is no non-religious representation on the court?

Absolutely not. The Supreme Court is neither representative nor a democracy. The justices’ personal views, on both religion and politics, should have no bearing on their decisions of legality and constitutionality. If they do let their ideology infect their jurisprudence, then they shouldn’t be appointed, regardless of whether or not I agree with them.

I’m not too concerned with her religious leanings. Rather, I’m absolutely fearful about her making a statement this like (coupled with her decision in the Ricci New Haven Firefighters Case):

“a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male”

Hey, The Unbrainwashed, I’d like to congratulate you on cherry-picking a quote out of context by Sotomayer and using it in the fine tradition of Fox News to make her look bad. Now, if you have any interest in what she actually said, in full context, I invite you to read it here.

I actually just blogged on this. I detailed her record on Church/State issues but have not made up my mind about her yet. Her record is a bit mixed. If anyone is interested, check out my blog at DangerousTalk.net. Sorry to blog dick, but this is a pretty important issue and I did a little research on it because I couldn’t find one site that listed a detailed record on these things.
-Staks