This whole discussion reminds me of the book that was talked about on here some time back, The Founding Myth. It seemed to address the very issue of separation of church and state and the personal views of Christian nationalists. I personally do not oppose people holding religious views who are in office, but arrive at the conclusion faith and the role of adhering to constitution must be clearly separated and delineated in the believer's mind as each bares unique chatacteristics and responsibilities. It would be interesting to pick up this book and read more from the purely constitutional aspect to hear the entire arguement laid out. I know some of the topics do get discussed on here, but looking at the bigger picture would offer more as well as previous cases and situations that have come before.

I found the idea presentef in the book a shock, at first. But it is indeed a relevant question of our time. I don't think a more nationlist agenda should be abated, but definately not abating this basic concept of separation of church and state either. Some of Barret's past actions do raise Qs about her ability to maintain that internal, personal separation. I also think I read something to the effect that she statef her job is to uphold constitution. And her approach is originalism. Not very familiar with it though, what ecactly it means.

It's still early, she could have COVID and she doesn't have presidential health care.

Just wrong for a justice

If she were to be confirmed, TWO-THIRDS of the sitting justices would be Catholic.

Oh dear.

“'...your legal career is but a means to an end, and . . . that end is building the kingdom of God,' a phrase that critics have focused on and that her supporters say has been taken out of context.”

How do you take that phrase out of context? In what context does the phrase, "your legal career is but a means to an end, and . . . that end is building the kingdom of God" mean anything other than, "You, as a lawyer or judge, are here on this planet to promote Christianity and not secular values"?

How does anyone who disagrees with Christian dogma get a fair hearing in front of a Justice with this point of view? I don't care how impartial someone thinks they are, if this is their internal conviction, backed by the kind of opinions they've handed down, they're not. They are promoting a Christian agenda.

The worst thing about her is that she's replacing RBG. She can't be any worse than Thomas and Alito. She is a wingnut but so are they.

She just disqualified herself.

[allthatsinteresting.com]