I haven’t written anything about the Harriet Miers nomination because I really don’t have an opinion. The reason why I don’t have an opinion is due to the fact that I don’t know anything about Miers or the issues at hand to form one.
A glance at the blogosphere would seem to indicate that this is extremely rare, a pundit who refuses to bloviate simply because he knows enough to realize that he doesn’t know enough. But that’s what sets the Chicago Boyz apart, and I’m not about to buck that trend.
Christopher Hitchens, it would appear, has been paying closer attention. He wonders why we can’t just stop pretending that there’s no “religious test” for the Supreme Court.
Read the whole thing.
Actually, there was a kind of religious balancing commonly practiced in the 19th century when it came to elections and appointments of all kinds. Elected executives were often quite careful to have members of their administration from religious groups not their own. Protestants would go out of their way to include a couple of Catholics and vice versa. It wasn’t something much talked about but most people knew the religious affiliation of all the major political figures and appointees of their day.
The disappearance of religion from public discourse was a distinctly mid-20th century phenomenon most likely driven by they rise of a carefully secular mass media.