Maybe the GOP should try to pick Fundamentalist/Evangelical types, we already have other faiths on the bench.
I'd rather pick the types who will construe the Constitution reasonably and remember---as Gorsuch appears to remember---
that the judicial branch of government is not intended to be a mere rubber stamp for the executive or the legislative branches,
any more than Congress is intended to be a mere rubber stamp for an overreaching executive, any more than the executive
is intended to be the national boss.
If they do that, I wouldn't and we shouldn't care which religion they do or don't practise. (One might care to remember the
Constitution's admonition in Article VI, Section 3:
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.)
It's also not unreasonable to suggest that---as part of the oath of office to which they all swear upon assuming office---it is the
job of every one of them in the legislative and executive branches to vet the laws they make or sign and to reject them if such
laws fail Constitutional muster. As
@Maj. Bill Martin noted,
bad law is not necessarily
unconstitutional law, assuming
the law in question is merely a law someone dislikes (Is there much law to dislike? Hey, ask me a tough one) but not necessarily
a law that tramples anyone's rights.
