Summer of SCOTUS 2: Religion

Announcer: Welcome to Civil Discourse. This podcast will use government documents to illuminate the workings of the American Government and offer contexts around the effects of government agencies in your everyday life. Now your hosts, Nia Rodgers, Public Affairs Librarian and Dr. John Aughenbaugh, Political Science Professor. N. Rodgers: Hey Aughe. J. Aughenbaugh: Good morning, Nia. How are you? N. Rodgers: I'm excellent. How are you? J. Aughenbaugh: I'm good. You should be pleased to know. Listeners, Nia usually likes to know this particular factoid about myself. I am now starting my second 24-route mug of coffee. This ought to be a very entertaining discussion. N. Rodgers: Well, I hope not too dramatically entertaining in the sense of too contagious. Part of our summer of SCOTUS this year is behind the curtain. J. Aughenbaugh: Yes. N. Rodgers: We're looking at things not about cases but about the justices themselves. We're covering things like the judicial tests they use to determine things. J. Aughenbaugh: We're going to get into qualifications and this idea that only the most Meredith of lawyers and judges should make it to the Supreme Court. N. Rodgers: We're going to talk about diversity on the core or thereof. J. Aughenbaugh: One of the most significant elements of diversity, Nia, and by the way, if there is one question I get from laypeople about the Supreme Court is they ask me about the religious affiliations of the justices. I get asked this question all the time. N. Rodgers: It's fascinating that people assume one that your religion will matter to your judicial output. J. Aughenbaugh: Yeah, judicial behavior, the way you roll, the way you vote. N. Rodgers: That's interesting. It's interesting that it is not a question we ask each other personally. When you meet new people, you don't generally say, so what religion do you belong to? Because that's one of those verboten. You don't ask people how much money they make. You don't ask them whether they're happy in their marriage and you don't ask people what religion they belong to. You wait for some clue. J. Aughenbaugh: Yeah, you wait for clues. I remember my mom telling me and my sisters in polite company, which begs the question, well, what about impolite? N. Rodgers: Exactly. That's not the people I hang around with. They're impolite, I can ask whatever I want. J. Aughenbaugh: I remember her telling us all the time in polite company, you never ask about money, sex, and religion. N. Rodgers: These days, politics, it's a combining force now. J. Aughenbaugh: She goes, depending on the audience, you might want to ask about their politics. But it's fascinating in regards to Supreme Court justices. Again that's one of the first things people always ask me about they're like, N. Rodgers: We act like it's a thing we should be able to know about them. J. Aughenbaugh: Yes. N. Rodgers: When we would not ask individuals these questions and yet here we are. I think you're right. It is big part of the overall diversity question that we're going to be talking about because, we'll also touch on later in another episode on race and gender, diversities or not. J. Aughenbaugh: Yeah. The notion of diversity has really evolved in regards to what it means for those people confirmed to sit on the Supreme Court. We're going to get into that in another episode. Listeners, this episode is about the religious backgrounds and affiliations of the 115 people who have been confirmed to sit on the Supreme Court. N. Rodgers: Can I just say that's weird? J. Aughenbaugh: What? N. Rodgers: A hundred and fifteen people. J. Aughenbaugh: Why so weird? N. Rodgers: Because we've been a country for 250 years and we've only had 115 justices. It really does bring home to you how long they serve. They serve for decades. They don't serve for years, they serve for decades. J. Aughenbaugh: The average length of tenure of Supreme Court justices keeps on getting greater. It is now almost 26 years per justice. N. Rodgers: Well, in fairness, life expectancy has lengthened in the United States. The last few presidents have chosen younger justices. It used to be that you were ancient when you became a justice and people didn't live much beyond ancient, so you didn't. J. Aughenbaugh: Yeah, it used to be. N. Rodgers: Can you imagine 26 years with the same group of people? I'd be homicidal. I'm not generally homicidal, but that would be tough for me. J. Aughenbaugh: Nia, one of the joys of teaching is that roughly every year I'm going to be exposed to new people. N. Rodgers: New students, new ideas, new people with new lives that we haven't explored yet. That's the best thing about academia. J. Aughenbaugh: Yeah, but this idea. N. Rodgers: I'm going to talk to the same nine people. When Justice Thomas earlier this year was lamenting how much he liked the old court better than the new court and he was basically slamming J. Robb, which I'm not a fan of because I love J. Robb. There's a part of me that's like, I appreciate your nostalgia but 10 years with the same people would have been terrible. One of the great things about my work is that there's a dynamic movement. It's sad when I lose colleagues and they move on to other institutions but then I get new colleagues and I learn different ways of doing things and different ways of thinking. But anyway, 115 justices. J. Aughenbaugh: Yes. N. Rodgers: Just out of curiosity, how many of them have been Protestant? J. Aughenbaugh: The overwhelming majority of the justices who've served on the US Supreme Court have been Protestant. Ninety-one of the 115. We're talking about various denominations within the category of Protestantism. N. Rodgers: Can I put out here that, it wasn't until 1960 that we get our first Catholic president? J. Aughenbaugh: That is correct. N. Rodgers: Because there seems to have been some cultural notion in the United States that Catholics would have divided loyalty between the American people and the Pope. J. Aughenbaugh: That's right. N. Rodgers: There are people responsibilities or they're responsibilities to the Pope. I think that Kennedy opened that door and went through it and people went, Catholics, they're not commanded by the Pope. The Pope makes suggestions about their lives, but not commands to their lives. Do you think why we had Protestant justices for so long was a similar feeling about the Pope and potential influence? J. Aughenbaugh: Well, in particular for judges, there is a conflict in regards to what extent does your religion make it difficult for you to neutrally apply the law. There seems to be, throughout our country's history the assumption that non-mainstream religions. It would be more difficult for justices of those face to be able to do the work of being a judge. Then Protestant judges, which ironically enough slams both Protestants, but also Nohan mainstream religions. N. Rodgers: I would argue that Catholicism is pretty mainstream. There is a walking bunch of Catholics in the world. J. Aughenbaugh: But in this country, we did have a Catholic justice. In fact, one of the most prominent Chief Justices of the 19th century, Roger Taney, he was appointed Chief Justice in 1836. Later on, in the 19th century, we actually had two Catholic justices, Edward Douglas White and then Joseph McKenna. But there was a vice against appointing non-Protestants. Nia, you're familiar with who the first Jewish Supreme Court Justice was. N. Rodgers: Is that Brandeis? J. Aughenbaugh: Yeah, that's right. Louis Brandeis. He was appointed in 1916. His confirmation hearing was just distorted. N. Rodgers: I bet that was ugly. I bet there were some really horrible things that were said. J. Aughenbaugh: There were groups and individuals who basically just came out and said, we cannot have a member of a despicable ethnicity, a despicable race, a despicable religion, i.e, being a Jew on a Supreme Court. It was terrible. N. Rodgers: Well, and 1916 anti-Semitic sentiment would have been perfectly acceptable to say that publicly? J. Aughenbaugh: Yeah. Perfectly acceptable. N. Rodgers: Because, it's not too far along after that we see the Holocaust. J. Aughenbaugh: Yes. But what's really interesting is overall, Protestants have dominated membership on the Supreme Court until recently. J. Aughenbaugh: It was just fascinating when it happened. From 2009 to 2016, there were no Protestants on the court. None. N. Rodgers: Really. That would have been the Catholic and Jewish? J. Aughenbaugh: All Catholics all Jews. Yes. N. Rodgers: Okay. J. Aughenbaugh: On the current court, we have six Catholics, two Jews, and one Protestant. Interestingly enough, the Protestant, Neil Gorsuch, was actually born and raised as a Catholic. He converted to the Episcopal of days after he got married. But we have six Catholics. N. Rodgers: Although those aren't a huge far leap from each other, are they? Catholicism and Episcopalian? I'm not trying to be ugly, I don't actually know the answer to that, but I think that aren't they relatively related in some way? J. Aughenbaugh: Yes. In fact, many of my Episcopal friends will refer to themselves as Catholic light. N. Rodgers: Well, not to offend Episcopalians listening to this. J. Aughenbaugh: No. Again, listeners, I'm just reporting what many of my Episcopal friends have said. N. Rodgers: It strikes me that of all the Protestants who've served, you have in your notes that one was a Quaker. J. Aughenbaugh: Yes. N. Rodgers: That seems like that would be very hard as a justice because Quakers really do have very strong. J. Aughenbaugh: Well, they have strong beliefs about the role of government. N. Rodgers: I'm just trying to get that. Thank you for saying that. J. Aughenbaugh: Also, the extent to which modern change can be accepted or adapted into their lives. Because they feel very strongly about things like government's going to war. N. Rodgers: A huge number of our conscientious objectors in the United States are Quaker. J. Aughenbaugh: This has been the only Supreme Court Justice scholars have been able to identify who belonged to the Quaker faith was Noah Swain. N. Rodgers: I would see that as being what a difficult job to have, to balance yourself that way. J. Aughenbaugh: In terms of the breakdowns of the justices who were Protestant or who have been protestant, 33 were Episcopalians, 18 Presbyterians, nine Unitarians, five Methodists, three Baptists, two disciples of Christ. Interestingly enough, it may be this reflects where I grew up. Because I went to school with a lot of people who were Lutherans. But there've only been two Lutherans on the Supreme Court, William Day and William Rehnquist. N. Rodgers: What's interesting to me is that there have not been yet Muslims, religions that have not yet been represented on the court. Buddhist, Seeks, none of the Native American fades, Hindus, Mormons, Orthodox. J. Aughenbaugh: Orthodox Christians, that's right. George Sutherland described himself as a lapsed Mormon. He was born and raised as a Mormon out in Utah. In fact, he was our first justice from Utah. But by the time he got to the court, he wasn't practicing. N. Rodgers: Well, do you have in your notes that that's a lot of Justices. That are like, man, I was raised fill in the blank thing. But I'm not particularly practicing or I'm no longer a particularly religious individual. J. Aughenbaugh: You highlight something that a number of scholars have identified as the unique characteristic of Supreme Court Justices, which is that many of them, as they progressed within their legal profession, and in particular, their judicial careers, became more non-practicing. Some scholars have wondered whether or not they did that on purpose because they didn't want their rulings to be, N. Rodgers: To be seen as religious in any way. J. Aughenbaugh: Yes, or whether or not the profession itself. N. Rodgers: Drives a wedge between you and God. J. Aughenbaugh: God. N. Rodgers: Which one could argue that lawyers, that's a complicated, I'm kidding. Lawyers out there are religious, I'm kidding. That is an interesting question that as if you go through the higher ranks of the judiciary, does your faith suffer in some way? J. Aughenbaugh: Or do you make a conscious choice? N. Rodgers: Do you pull away from it? J. Aughenbaugh: Because there are certain professions with their training and the nature of their jobs, I could easily see an individual perhaps not necessarily losing faith, but not necessarily practicing their faith as much and am not being necessarily critical of the legal profession. Because I have students who apply to law schools, I interact a lot with law school faculty and law school admissions, administrators. They light heartedly say, it doesn't matter what your major was, before you come to law school, we're going to teach you to think like a lawyer. N. Rodgers: I don't think it's actually lighthearted. I think they're like the marines. They break you down and make you up as a different person. The marines tell you that. When you join the marines, they're like you will not be the person you are now when you are done with marine corps training because we are going to change you. J. Aughenbaugh: We're going to change you. N. Rodgers: I think lawyers, that's the same thing. They teach you how to think in a very specific and somewhat pedantic, I may say, way about words. Words matter to lawyers. Order of the words, what the sub clause implies about the main plot, all of that matters to them. J. Aughenbaugh: Where the comma is placed. We're thinking about this listeners and Nia, you and I have talked about this off recording. But think about how difficult it is to be a person of faith and get advanced college degrees. Because the dance college degrees encourage you to put your trust and faith in science. N. Rodgers: Well, and actually try to pull faith out of it. J. Aughenbaugh: Yes. N. Rodgers: You should be able to prove a thing. I imagine that with lawyers, if they say, well, we'll just take it on faith that you didn't commit this crime, all the lawyers in the room would drop their jaws and their papers and start yelling. That's not what we do, what we do is we deal in proof. J. Aughenbaugh: They don't really care if you committed the crime. What they want to know is. N. Rodgers: Can I prove you committed the crime. J. Aughenbaugh: Or can I go ahead and prove that the prosecution's claim that you committed a crime. N. Rodgers: Is wrong. J. Aughenbaugh: Is wrong. N. Rodgers: Or is implausible. I guess that would have a huge effect on that. You would have to really split your self in order to say, I have faith in my religion and my God, and I require proof in this other part of my life. J. Aughenbaugh: Life, that's right. N. Rodgers: That would be complicated interests to try to balance. J. Aughenbaugh: Again, if you're a judge and you want to have the appearance of impartiality, I wonder to what extent some justices are just like I no longer practice, I can't practice. N. Rodgers: How do we know? J. Aughenbaugh: A lot of it is self-reporting. Some of it is biographical research. N. Rodgers: Are they allowed to ask that in the confirmation hearing? J. Aughenbaugh: Oh, wow. N. Rodgers: Because we're not allowed to ask that in an interview. If you can't do VCU and somebody in the room said, what religion do you belong to? The interview would stop right there. The person who asked it would be booted out of the room. The candidate would be told not to answer the question. You are not required to answer that question. We're going to pretend that that didn't happen here because we don't want there to be any chance that there's a religious discrimination issue when hiring. That's essentially what the Senate is doing with. J. Aughenbaugh: Well, they're conducting or rather shall we say, intense public, somewhat bizarre interview process. N. Rodgers: Exactly. If you were a tree, what tree would you be? You know what? I don't want this job anymore. J. Aughenbaugh: It's interesting you bring this up because the most recently confirmed justice, for the Supreme Court that is taken office. Well, that the point that we're recording this podcast episode, Judge Brown Jackson has been confirmed by the Senate to replace justice Breyer. But the most previous or most recent confirmation confirmed justice was Justice Amy Coney Barrett. Amy Coney Barrett is Catholic. This actually came up with both for Supreme Court confirmation hearing, but also her confirmation hearing to serve on the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. She was asked about her religion. The senators who asked got really lambasting, because the United States Constitution makes it very clear that there cannot be any religious requirements for people to serve in the federal government. N. Rodgers: I'm glad they got lambasted, however you pronounce that. J. Aughenbaugh: I've heard that pronounced two different ways. N. Rodgers: Either way. Let's just say it all the way. I'm glad they got chewed out. Hop there we go. J. Aughenbaugh: Criticized. N. Rodgers: Criticized because that is none of your business. A person's faith or not faith, if there are any case. J. Aughenbaugh: Yes. N. Rodgers: That I think we've had one atheist in the entire crowd. J. Aughenbaugh: Who went ahead and acknowledge duty was not practicing. A number of Justice has said they were no longer practicing. N. Rodgers: David Davis. J. Aughenbaugh: Oh, yeah. David Davis, by the way, was nominated by Lincoln. He was one of Lincoln's best friends. Lincoln was, by all accounts, a very spiritual president. One of the most spiritual presidents we've had in our country's history. N. Rodgers: David Davis probably did not call himself an Atheist the way somebody might do now. J. Aughenbaugh: Now, that's right. N. Rodgers: Given the time, but I'm going to throw out here that I don't think that that should be a question we should ask. I don't think the justices should feel compelled to answer. I know that probably part of why that was asked with Amy Coney Barrett was because of this upcoming Dobbs case. J. Aughenbaugh: She was replacing Justice Ginsburg. She is Catholic. The teachings of the Catholic faith is that abortion is wrong. Of course, she was going to go ahead and be asked, does your faith influence the decisions you make as a judge? Because if she had said yes, then they were immediately going to go ahead and say, well, then how can you rule impartially on upcoming cases concerning abortion or the death penalty. Scalia, who was a very prominent Catholic, was asked a number of times, does your religious faith affect your view of the Constitution? He said, no, I'm a judge. As far as I'm concerned, the eighth amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. When the Amendment was written, was the death penalty either cruel or unusual as a punishment? No. The death penalty is constitutional. N. Rodgers: See, I have so many feelings about Scalia, anyway. But we're not going to talk about that because you're enticing me, I see what you're doing. I'm not sure that I believe it's inappropriate question to ask in an interview. In fact, I don't think it's inappropriate question to ask in an interview. That's probably in part because I've come up through academia and in interviews here we don't ask questions like that. In fact, for anybody who's wondering about how we hire, there's a whole subset of questions you are not allowed to ask people. Are you married? Do you have children? What's your religion? There's a bunch of things you're just not allowed to ask people. I like that. J. Aughenbaugh: Because the purpose of the interview is to figure out whether or not you have the skills to do the job. N. Rodgers: I can ask you all a skills-based questions I want. How many classes have you taught? How many freshmen have you taught? How many young people have you mentored, [inaudible]? Whatever it is that I want you, you can do. J. Aughenbaugh: What was your research method? N. Rodgers: Exactly. J. Aughenbaugh: Somebody applying for a job in a library. What kinds of relationships did you have with professors at your previous institution? A student comes to you with this particular research question. Walk us through the steps that you would engage in to help them find that research? N. Rodgers: Exactly. Totally related to your job and your skills. J. Aughenbaugh: That's why asking questions about religion seems to be and I'm like you, I don't understand how it relates to the job of judging, which then would put a premium on some of the criticisms of the questions that do get asked about the judging. Because the questions are so leading, no judge in their right mind will go ahead and say, well, in this particular case, I wouldn't rule this way. You can answer that question because as a judge, you're supposed to keep an open mind. N. Rodgers: If you'll answer that question that way it's that you don't interview well and we don't want you as a judge. J. Aughenbaugh: What I would like to see, is greater diversity of religion. But again, I am a proponent of organizations. N. Rodgers: Get better when they have different kinds of people in the organization. J. Aughenbaugh: I'm glad you brought that up because it's a point I'd like to touch on, which is because I don't believe in asking people about their religious affiliation, I also don't believe that there should be a checklist of we need two Jews and we need one Muslim and we need one, I don't think that works either. I think that has to be inorganic. N. Rodgers: It has to be organic. If for instance right now we had nine justices and all of them were agnostic, I would ask the question, how the hell are we ending up with all of these justices being the same? You know what I'm saying? J. Aughenbaugh: I'm glad that we're done with the history of when all the justices were Protestants. N. Rodgers: Yes. J. Aughenbaugh: Because nobody else could be on the court. N. Rodgers: Basically, in listeners, you're getting a taste of what you're probably going to get a rather healthy meal of when we do talk about diversity married on the court. Because, me and I actually subscribe to a very similar view about diversity, which is if we're getting all of the same type of person, we need to go ahead and think long and hard about how we were picking people to do work within the organization. J. Aughenbaugh: Exactly. We need to stop doing that and change it. Because we need that diversity of thought. N. Rodgers: Because with a Supreme Court, they're the highest court in the land. They got judicial review. They got the final word on the meaning of the constitution. If all nine of them were Protestants and they all went to the same school or the same type of school. J. Aughenbaugh: They were all the same gender, and they were all the same race. N. Rodgers: Race. J. Aughenbaugh: How diverse are those opinions? N. Rodgers: How diverse are of those opinions, and moreover, how good is the opinion? How good is the decision? Because at that point, how could they not have an act of chamber. That's what I'm concerned about. I want the highest court in the land to basically leave no stone unturned before they hand down a significant landmark decision that could impact millions of people. That's what I want. You know where I don't want diversity of opinion, is the automobile mechanic that is fixing my engine. J. Aughenbaugh: Although you want diversity of experience in that mechanic shop so that he can turn to someone and say, have you all ever heard this sound before? No, what the heck is that thing? They all come over and stare at it and then somebody says, push that button and see what happens. Now, I'll take a step back and make that guy push the button. N. Rodgers: Very good. J. Aughenbaugh: That we want. N. Rodgers: Yeah, I like your addendum because otherwise, I want somebody with some confidence that finally says, hey, this shop has agreed, this is your problem. We did this, the problem is fixed. But likewise, if I go to a hospital and I get a doctor who's like, I don't know why you're feeling that pain. I don't want that doctor to go ahead and just send me home. I want that doctor to go ahead and say, hey, I need to go ahead and talk to so and so. J. Aughenbaugh: Diversity of knowledge. N. Rodgers: Knowledge, diversity of experience. J. Aughenbaugh: Exactly. I am positive that during the Oklahoma case, everybody in the room looked at Neil Gorsuch and said, what is the background on this? N. Rodgers: I've heard the jurisdiction on whether or not Oklahoma could go, yeah. Exactly, the McGurk case. Because let's face it. J. Aughenbaugh: The rest of all those folks from the East Coast, I'm not trying to be ugly, but the East Coast elite. N. Rodgers: Yeah. J. Aughenbaugh: Don't know what those issues are. It's helpful to have somebody on the court. That's why we want the court to also represent diversity in geography. N. Rodgers: Geography, experience. I wouldn't mind having somebody who was a corporate lawyer if the Supreme Court is going to get 10, 12, 14 business cases every year. J. Aughenbaugh: That person has done this work and understands the ins and outs. Yeah. N. Rodgers: I know the perception of corporate lawyers. But nevertheless, I want somebody who could go ahead and explain to me, whether or not the government could regulate this contract that was entered into by five corporations from five different nations. J. Aughenbaugh: What we're getting at is that we like diversity on the court. N. Rodgers: Oh, sure. J. Aughenbaugh: You're going to hear this refrain. N. Rodgers: Yes. J. Aughenbaugh: Probably a couple more times this summer. Sorry. We're just going to keep drum beating the we'd like diversity on the court. We like that right now there is some diversity of religion. N. Rodgers: I will like see more. Again listeners, full disclosure I'm Catholic and I'm well aware that historically on the court individuals were not considered to serve on the court because they were Catholic. We know this. But, as far as I'm concerned, the discrimination against Catholics for government service is or was as stupid or as idiotic in my estimation as any kind of discrimination because somebody might be a Muslim or a Buddhist. I don't care. You know what I care about, can you go ahead and do the job as a judge? J. Aughenbaugh: Two of our best justices in recent memory. Antonin Scalia, a Catholic, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a Jew. N. Rodgers: Yes. I didn't get the sense in reading their opinions and yes, as near as I like to joke, I'm that kind of gate because I've pretty much read almost every single one of their opinions. I never got the sense that their religion unduly influenced harm their ability to be a judge. J. Aughenbaugh: Agreed. N. Rodgers: It just didn't. I don't think either one of them would go ahead and say, well, my faith tells me I have to rule this way. They were both stubborn, intellectually rigorous, and if their religion disagreed with what they thought the law indicated, they would pretty much tell their religion, see you, bye. J. Aughenbaugh: Because that's the best. They aren't the only ones. That's the best way that justices can work is to silo those two things and say, but I have to do what is just here. N. Rodgers: Yes. J. Aughenbaugh: Not necessarily what my faith may or may not tell me to do. N. Rodgers: Yeah. J. Aughenbaugh: I also shouldn't save it. I preferenced those two justices because of their fates. I don't. I generally preferenced those two justices when speaking about justice. Justice is here of recent vintage, is that those two people could make my blood boil faster than pretty much any other justices. N. Rodgers: I completely disagree with that. There you go. J. Aughenbaugh: But the rigor. N. Rodgers: All the justice you don't get to that job. The idea that somehow justices are phoning it in, I've been hearing lately about Justice Thomas. Justice Thomas is durable justice. No, you may not agree. By the way 98.47 percent of the time I don't agree with Justice Thomas. J. Aughenbaugh: Yes, I don't know always do say that. N. Rodgers: I would not say that he is not intellectually rigorous. They are all intellectually rigorous. They are people who are serious about these jobs and who are serious about making the right decision for the people and for the court. I think they're serious people just because we disagree and it comes back to what we titled this podcast, which is civil discourse. Just because you disagree doesn't mean they are not good people who are trying to do the right thing in the world. J. Aughenbaugh: Yeah. N. Rodgers: I don't like several of them, but that doesn't mean they're bad people J. Aughenbaugh: No, it's not that I don't like them personally because let's face it. I don't know them. N. Rodgers: They're jurisprudence. J. Aughenbaugh: I don't like their jurisprudence but they have a tough job and yes, they get paid good money and yes, they get put on a pedestal. N. Rodgers: They have lots of perks. J. Aughenbaugh: But if somebody went ahead and told me, "Tomorrow Aughenbaugh we want you to be on the Supreme Court." Truth be told, I would think long and hard about accepting the nomination because it's a tough job. N. Rodgers: Because people like us are going to talk about you. It's not just us it's all media, all punditry and it will be forever. J. Aughenbaugh: Ever. N. Rodgers: Hundred and fifteen justices that's all. J. Aughenbaugh: Yes. N. Rodgers: They've all got books written about them. Somebody has delved into their lives and looked in their closet for skeletons and you know what I mean by that's terrible. J. Aughenbaugh: Again, we're just doing a podcast episode about their religion. Most people don't really care what my religion is. I mean, I meet people all the time, they're actually pretty shocked when they find out that I am religious. J. Aughenbaugh: But we can look forward. We hope an expansion as more presidents have more qualified and part of that is that I want to touch on this before we close out which is that presidents can only choose from a certain number of judges at certain levels to become justices. Now that's not technically true, technically they could ask Aughie and he could be a justice tomorrow. Well, not really because there's not an open space. But technically they don't have to do that, but that's not how it works. How it works is that you serve in the judicial system for a while, you end up moving to a district court somewhere, and then you end up being plucked to the Supreme Court. They don't just pick people randomly. For years we did not have diversity in the lower courts the people move up through in order to be chosen to the higher courts. J. Aughenbaugh: You didn't have diversity in law schools which you didn't have diversity in the legal profession. N. Rodgers: You didn't have diversity in undergraduate to get to law school to get to. J. Aughenbaugh: The legal profession which meant the selection for judges was also not going to be diverse and this takes generations. Diversity research points out that when you make a commitment to diversity, it can't be for just a generation, it has to be for multiple. N. Rodgers: That's excellent well said because that's true that we're just now getting to the pipeline where there are women at that level. Sandra Day O'Connor was ahead of her time. J. Aughenbaugh: Yes. N. Rodgers: But we're getting now into the 2000s where women being put on the court is normalized. J. Aughenbaugh: It's become normalized in part because we have more women who are attorneys and we're finally at a point to where a majority of law school students are women. N. Rodgers: Justices are being groomed. J. Aughenbaugh: They are groomed for this. This idea that a female attorney would want to go ahead and stop a lucrative career to be a judge. That was a cultural norm. Why would you do that? Well, now it is one of a number of legal career choices you might have and that took a couple of generations of women in the legal profession. N. Rodgers: Unfortunately, that's also true for religion. Law schools did not welcome religions that were outside. J. Aughenbaugh: They had quarrels on how many Catholics would be in their law school classes, how many Jews. They did go ahead and have that not necessarily be an issue. N. Rodgers: Right. J. Aughenbaugh: Not be an issue. N. Rodgers: Now we're seeing in law schools and in the lower court judgeships, we're seeing Muslims and Hindus and Buddhists and Sikhs and we're seeing those now that you're right, that timeline of you have to commit for generations means that in 10 or 15 or 20 years when those people who have served at the district court level for however long and they are being chosen to go to the Supreme Court we will see more diversity. J. Aughenbaugh: Yes. N. Rodgers: In that way. That's an excellent point Aughie. Thank you. Because I had not put that in that order mentally, but that is now the law schools are more diverse. We will begin to see more diversity in the Judiciary. J. Aughenbaugh: Yes. N. Rodgers: Thank you. J. Aughenbaugh: Sure. I enjoyed the conversation. N. Rodgers: Me too. J. Aughenbaugh: Like I said it is one of the top five questions I get from non-academics. N. Rodgers: You should just say to people, if you guess protestant, you're gonna be right most of the time. Although not lately. J. Aughenbaugh: Not lately. N. Rodgers: Not lately. Cool. Thanks Aughie. J. Aughenbaugh: Thank you Nia. Announcer: You've been listening to civil discourse brought to you by VCU Libraries. Opinions expressed are solely the speaker's own and do not reflect the views or opinions of VCU or VCU Libraries. Special thanks to the Workshop for technical assistance. Music by Isaak Hopson. Find more information at guides.library.vcu.edu/discourse. As always, no documents were harmed in the making of this podcast.