Twilight of the WASPs?

Michael Smerconish: Twilight of the WASPs?
4.15.10

By Michael Smerconish - Daily News
Philadelphia Daily News
Daily News Opinion Columnist

FOR NOW, I'll leave it to others to speculate about the implications of Justice John Paul Stevens' retirement from the Supreme Court.
I'm too focused on religion, wondering what's next for the WASPs.
 

As pointed out by Adam Liptak in the New York Times, the court is about to lose its sole remaining representative of America's largest religion, Protestantism. Six Catholics and two Jews currently join Stevens on the bench. Among them are an African-American (Clarence Thomas), two Italian-Americans (Samuel Alito and Antonin Scalia) and a Latina in Sonia Sotomayor. (And as is mandatory in all branches of government, the court also includes a Kennedy.)
 

Representatives of those religious and ethnic backgrounds have laid claim to seats in the past. But Stevens' retirement presents a dynamic that would've been unthinkable a short time ago. And it raises the question of whether the nation's majority religion should lay claim to a seat on the Supreme Court.
 

After all, it was significant for Sotomayor to initiate a conversation about the experiences that a "wise Latina" might bring to the bench. Couldn't a civilized WASP claim an equally important sphere of wisdom?
 

President Obama could pick a Presbyterian, a Baptist, a Lutheran or a Methodist. Heck, even a Calvinist would work. Regardless of denomination, the court needs someone who understands the common experiences that have shaped Protestant Americans.
 

Consider these examples of the unique demands a Protestant reclamation of the high court could fulfill.
 

When matters of employment come up, it's important to have someone who has retained domestic help.
 

In regards to maritime law, who best to know the port from the starboard, and the Vineyard from Nantucket?
 

Then there are those cases of alleged discrimination often litigated in front of the court. So it follows that at least one of its members should know what it's like to blackball you from a country club. Or at least what it's like to visit a country club and walk the course.
 

The court's recent decision involving campaign finance showed the need for a justice who's had money and understands that it's best kept under the mattress. Not to mention someone who knows what NOKD stands for. ("Not our kind, dear.")
 

Stevens' replacement must also sympathize with the unique problems confronted by two-parent families - for instance, the arguing and marital strife that can ensue when parents disagree on child-rearing. Especially when the nanny gets involved.
 

And don't forget that the perspectives of many Protestant Americans have been shaped by their confrontations with government and law-enforcement abuses. Every day, hundreds of them must talk their way out of parking tickets. Such experience would add a significant dose of empathy to the court.
 

What about sorting out a factual dispute? Say someone sees a bank robber wearing madras pants. Do you think Scalia or Thomas could define madras? Remember when Chief Justice William Rehnquist began wearing Gilbert and Sullivan-esque robes during the mid-'90s? Why not update his colleagues' unadorned robes by adding whales and anchors?
 

And who on the court as it's composed would know how to mix a vodka gimlet or an old-fashioned?
 

OK, I'm kidding. (Maybe.) Which illustrates my point.
 

Could I even get away with highlighting such stereotyped perceptions of any other religion? Never. They'd object vehemently. But not the WASPs.
 

They sit silently and maintain a stiff upper lip. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, but Protestants have grown rusty. Despite the fact that so many Americans are Protestants, we never hear about a powerful political lobby representing their interests. No "Sons-in-Law of the American Revolution" will storm the Capitol seeking to further the WASP agenda.
 

FINALLY, all this analysis of the correct balance for a public body reminds me of James Watt, secretary of the Interior from 1981 to 1983. Mocking affirmative action in 1983, Secretary Watt described an advisory panel: "I have a black, a woman, two Jews and a cripple. And we have talent." He resigned 18 days later.
 

He was a Protestant.
 

Listen to Michael Smerconish weekdays 5-9 a.m. on the Big Talker, 1210/AM. Read him Sundays in the Inquirer. Contact him via the Web at www.smerconish.com.