Archbishop Chaput Talks About All Those Catholics On The Supreme Court - Press Q and A Part IV

Past post on this are Archbishop Chaput Explains Catholic Stuff to the Press in a Q and A Session-Sally Quinn Still Does Not Get It , Why is Archbishop Rummel a Role Model for Archbishop Chaput? Press Q and A Part II , and Just Because You Were An Former Altar Boy Does Not Make You Pope- Archbishop Chaput Q and A with Press Part III

I am going to do about a total of 6 or 7 short posts today on what catches my eye in this very interesting speech and now added Q and A session with the press. The whole think is worth reading.

I thought this part was very interesting because Chaput is touching on issues of religion and the court , Catholic Justice's responsibility, an other matters. It starts out in an amusing sort of way because not only is Chaput having to explain the Catholic Faith to the press but also it appears basic concepts of American Govt.

CROMARTIE: Wendy Kaminer has sent in a question, and Wendy is a blogger at The Phoenix. This goes to the question of Catholic influence, especially on the Supreme Court.

WENDY KAMINER, THE PHOENIX: The majority of the Supreme Court – five of our justices – are Catholic. Given your sense of the obligations of Catholics to promote laws and policies in keeping with Catholic beliefs, is there a civics argument for religious diversity on the court, given its power to make law in a pluralistic society?

CROMARTIE: Let me follow up her question by asking one of my own, adding to it. What would you think about nine Catholics on the court? Is there a statute of limitations on the number of Catholics that can be on the court? Wendy, I know that you would probably appreciate that addition to your question.

CHAPUT: The Supreme Court doesn’t make law, as we know. It interprets the law. I think it’s much easier from a moral perspective to be a justice – a judge – than it is to be a legislator. Legislators are the ones who make laws and change laws. But to interpret the law in its fidelity to the Constitution is a much less morally compromising kind of position to have, I think.

I’d rather be a justice than a politician, in terms of dealing with my conscience, because if we write bad laws in this country that are constitutional, then the judges – the justices – have to interpret the laws as allowed by the Constitution, even if they don’t like them, even if they would think they’re not good for the country, it seems to me, even if they think they’re not moral. That’s what justices do.

So I had the impression that Wendy thinks that the Supreme Court writes the law. Certainly that’s not my impression. I know it can’t write the law. In terms of not wanting all the justices to be Catholics, I agree with you, Michael. That would not be a good idea in the United States.

CROMARTIE: And you say that on the record, don’t you?

CHAPUT: Certainly I think we live in a pluralistic society that I love, and I think it’s served our faith communities in this country very, very well, and I wouldn’t want to see it change.

DIONNE: See, that line is: “Bishop Opposes more Catholics on Court.”
(Laughter.)

CHAPUT: Well, how about this: “Protestant Says That There’s Too Many Already and There’s a Danger of Taking Over.”

Later Fred Barnes of FOX and the Weekly Standard make me laugh when he says:

FRED BARNES, THE WEEKLY STANDARD: Archbishop, you’re against nine Catholics on the Supreme Court. How about eight?
(Laughter.)
CHAPUT: Seven? You sound like Abraham negotiating with God about Sodom and Gomorrah.