Are religion and background appropriate areas of inquiry for choosing US Supreme Court justices?

Answer 1

Religion definitely is not an appropriate topic of inquiry because Article VI, Section 3, the No Religious Test Clause of the Constitution, prohibits using any aspect of religion as a preferential or discriminatory qualification for public office.

This clause has been interpreted to mean that no federal employee or officeholder can be required to adhere to the beliefs of any religion, or to swear an allegiance or oath to any deity. The words "So help me God," spoken at the end of many Oaths of Office, are not an explicit part of the oath, and are uttered voluntarily.

Article VIAll debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

The word "background" can be interpreted broadly, making that part of the question much more difficult to answer. Some aspects of a person's background, such as educational and professional qualifications, are appropriate areas of inquiry; others, such as ethnic heritage, are not.

It is valid to analyze aspects of a person's background that would specifically influence his or her performance in office. Public officials may be subject to much more intense scrutiny than job applicants who are members of the general population, which is reasonable to the extent that there is a relationship between specific personal information and the effect of that information on the country.