By now we all know that if Sonia Sotomayor is confirmed by the Senate, she will be the first Latina to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States. It is not unreasonable to wonder when the first practicing Muslim would be nominated to the highest court in the land. Sadly, even though Muslim slaves help build this country from the time of its founding and millions of Muslim live here today, such an event will not occur for the foreseeable future or even possibly in our lifetimes.

There are multiple obstacles to a Muslim being appointed to the Supreme Court, much less the lower level courts of the United States.

First, although there are an increasing number of seasoned Muslim attorneys around the country and a dozen or so law professors there are no District or Appellate level judges in the United States. In modern history, Supreme Court nominees have been sitting judges. Groups such as the American Bar Association even vet nominees based on their judicial experience and make recommendations to the President. Without any players on the Bench, as it were, we cannot expect a Muslim to make it to the Supreme Court.

Second, a significant number of Americans have an unfavorable opinion about Islam and Muslims that is growing stronger. According to a survey published in September 2007 by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, 35 percent of respondents had an unfavorable opinion about Islam (the same survey conducted in March 2002 found that only 29 percent of Americans had an unfavorable opinion about Islam). Since the Federal judiciary is appointed by the President and confirmed by the United States Senate, the nation’s elected officials would have to overcome their constituents’ prejudices and steel themselves against vicious attacks from opponents. In short, the appointment of a Muslim would not be popular.

Third, the United States is involved in multiple wars around the world, both open and covert, with countries that have Muslim majority populations. Although both Presidents Bush and Obama have repeatedly stated that America is not at war with Islam, the repeated mention on the nightly news of the “Islamic radicals” “Islamic terrorists” and “Islamic militias” who we are fighting makes it hard for the ordinary citizen and politician to discern between the Muslim enemy and the Muslim American. The nomination of a Muslim would be sure to ignite accusations of "putting our enemy on the Supreme Court.”

The antipathy Americans feel towards their fellow Muslim citizens is based more on perception rather than any concrete knowledge. The same Pew study quoted above found that 58% of Americans knew little or nothing about Islam. However, perception is in many cases reality. One can be sure that during a confirmation hearing, antagonists would be feeding the news media with horror stories about Muslims and the bad acts that have been done in the name of Islam.

The questions about a nominee’s practice of Islam and personal adherence would be endless. All the familiar tropes would be rolled out: Does the nominee believe in shariah law and its medieval repertoire of punishments such as beheadings and stonings? What does the nominee think of women who are subjugated and forced to wear headscarves or who are forbidden to drive in Saudi Arabia? What does the nominee think of suicide bombing? And on and on and on.

The nominee may unequivocally disavow all of these abhorrent practices and still the damage would be done in raising the specter of the Muslim bogeyman. Indeed the only person to escape such vociferous questioning would be someone who declared, like Barack Hussain Obama, that they weren’t Muslim at all or a Clarence Thomas self-hating type who would disavow their background in order to achieve their life’s ambition.

Generally speaking the Supreme Court has not been open to religious minorities. Like the other branches of government, the Court at its founding was dominated by Episcopalians and Congregationalists. It took almost 50 years for Roger B. Taney, to become the Court’s first Catholic member albeit as Chief Justice. It was another 50 years before another Catholic, Edward D. White, was appointed as an Associate Justice.

Relative to their numbers within the American population, Jews have fared better. Louis Brandeis was appointed to the court in 1916. Since then there have been seven Jewish Justices on the Supreme Court.

However, if progress can be measured in numbers then change can happen. If Judge Sotomayor is confirmed, six of the nine serving members will now be Catholic. Two Justices will be Jewish and one will be an Episcopalian. There will still be zero Muslims on the Court.

(Photo: Jay Tamboli)

right. and so if we asked black people in the 1960's whether there would be a black president in their lifetime, they would probably have said no. i think its possible, even in the next 50 years. no one will care about islam in 50 years after china becomes the largest economy in the world and most of our energy comes from renewable sources. at that time being muslim will be like being buddhist or sikh. strange, but not really of major concern.

The concept of sharia triumphant creates the antipathy, followed by sanguinary separatist movements and violent riots. Why would non muslims have a positive image of muslims?

Get Serious! We'll just as soon have a Muslim on the Supreme Court as have a black president!

I think the reason Muslims aren't on the Supreme court bench is the same reason the author pointed out ~

>> Generally speaking the Supreme Court has not been open to religious minorities. Like the other branches of government, the Court at its founding was dominated by Episcopalians and Congregationalists. It took almost 50 years for Roger B. Taney, to become the Court’s first Catholic member albeit as Chief Justice. It was another 50 years before another Catholic, Edward D. White, was appointed as an Associate Justice. <<

It is difficult for minorities to influence institutions whose internal values are dominated by certain values and ideological profiles. Maybe that's why the only way an African American can become Secretary of State is if he is wholly compromised into lying to start a war. Maybe its a position people shouldn't be involved in until the institution is ready for their fruitful participation? If Muslims want fellow Muslims to take such prominent roles in American jurisprudence, they must value the institutions importance to greater degrees than Americans.

It is difficult for minorities to influence institutions whose internal values are dominated by certain values and ideological profiles. Maybe that's why the only way an African American can become Secretary of State is if he is wholly compromised into lying to start a war. Maybe its a position people shouldn't be involved in until the institution is ready for their fruitful participation? If Muslims want fellow Muslims to take such prominent roles in American jurisprudence, they must value the institutions importance to greater degrees than Americans.
- Posted by Ghulam

If your ideas were that good all the time, I'd subscribe to your blog!

This is funny when you think about it in real perspective. What about the American Indians ? They are still living on reservations through out the USA and other groups still push them in back of the line...

What about the American Indians ? They are still living on reservations through out the USA and other groups still push them in back of the line...

- Posted by USA2KSA

People pushing them to the back of the line are trying to get into the Indian owned and operated casinos...something about white people being genetically bad at math.

I like that one fester! lol.. The indians was recently asked what they were planning to do with all that money and they replied "BUY THEIR LAND BACK" Smart people ya think.

Not as long as the Jewish Lobby (AIPAC, ADL, AJC, etc.) is running the 'American Show'.

Russian-Israeli Jewish writer once wrote: "America is as much Jewish, as Vatican is Catholic."

Not as long as the Jewish Lobby (AIPAC, ADL, AJC, etc.) is running the 'American Show'.

Russian-Israeli Jewish writer once wrote: "America is as much Jewish, as Vatican is Catholic."

- Posted by Rehmat

This is the kind of statement you get from people in New York City, who have never been outside New York City.

The title was interesting, and I'm surprised that there are no district-live judges, but why doesn't the author examine the qualifications of prospective Muslim jurists, rather than jump to the conclusion that "antipathy towards Muslims" is the culprit?

The title was interesting, and I'm surprised that there are no district-live judges, but why doesn't the author examine the qualifications of prospective Muslim jurists, rather than jump to the conclusion that "antipathy towards Muslims" is the culprit?

- Posted by Solomon2

What bugs me is how hard it is to get those making these statements to see the validity of your point.

Of course we'll see a Muslim Supreme Court judge in our lifetime.

Farhan, here are my thoughts on the points you mentioned:

1.) True, I agree but if you;re talking about seeing a Muslim SC judge in our "lifetime" then there's plenty of time for any of those Muslim lawyers / professors to get onto the Bench.

2.) The paradigm you're referring would be applicable in the present time. However as time goes on we can expect to see more Muslim lawmakers on the Hill, as opposed to just the two or three currently.

3.) Regarding this point and the subsequent concern of a candidate's "Islamic views" being examined, I doubt it would be so insurmountable as you portray; after all any Muslim law professional getting to that stage of being a probable candidate for Supreme Court will have a written track record of their views and possible solutions on many of the controversial dynamics relating to Islam and Muslims. There won't be much to cry wolf about, because decades worth of rulings and writings will make the candidate's stance fairly clear.

Overall, I highly doubt the current political climate, and the current public discourse on Islam and Muslims will continue throughout our "lifetimes" - presuming you and I live to be about 90 or so, which for me is just over another 60 years to go.

How can there be a practicing Muslim on the supreme court? Doesn't Islam reject all law except the Sharia and view those who "submit" to the law of infidels as being apostates?

How can there be a PRACTICING and OBSERVANT Muslim on the supreme court?

Doesn't orthodox Islam view those who willingly "submit" to the laws of the infidel and not Sharia as being apostates, subject to death?

Or is someone supposing that Sharia should be the law of America?

Well Mr. BigBill6999, I guess that just means they wont be a practicing and observant Muslim, eh?

Doesn't Islam reject all law except the Sharia...
- Posted by bigbill6999

No. Where on earth did you dig that one up? That's like saying Christians are obligated to follow the word of the pope.