I try to be careful about making too many religious references to the issue of the courts, even though that is one area of our national life that has been most offended by many court decisions and even though a number of Bush appointees have some religious perspective in their background or personal life.
I have no doubts that the Dims would be just as opposed to any Bush judicial appointee who had the same type of judicial-decision record as do those appointees they are now holding up - no matter what their "religious" identification. At its base, it is their views on the constitution that set them apart and that lift them up in our eyes and worry the Democrats. I would support an atheist who had the same respect for the constitution and with the same respect for Judicial Review being held to the original intent - unless and until we, the people, act to amend our constitution.
Mark Levin, the great legal mind and author of "Men In Black" that he is, is Jewish and not even "orthodox" as far as I can tell. I have not heard anyone lay out the issues, principles and challenges presented by our judicial oligarchy as well as he as.
Keep our arguments focused on what are the principles that reflect a properly run judiciary, not issue-oriented
results we think we want to see from that judiciary. The entire leftist judicial agenda is focused 180 degrees from that. The principles do not matter to them, just the results. That's how we got to where we are. Repeat their method and we will get a short term period of results we like, but the system will still be endangering our democracy.
We are not getting what we want out of our judiciary because of the judicial-decision making philosophy that ignores, and is willing to destroy, the democratic basis of the constitution and constitutional law. In terms of being a danger to our democracy it would not make any difference if they were ruling "in our favor" when they over-ruled the constitution by judicial fiat. We cannot applaud such acts even if/when we think we like the result. It is always a dimunition of our democratic rights in a democratic republic. It is always a dimunition of the democratic basis of the constitution.