[Dimensio]

Phyllis figures that if Christians vote in politicians, they should deliver with good judicial appointments and the judges then should make good decisions. Isn't that how politics works?

You have not answered my question. Do you believe that the decision was "bad" because the judge used legal prescedent -- that is, existing case law -- rather than ruling in the way that adherents to Fundamentalist Christianity desired? Do you believe that the law should be ignored in a judicial ruling when a community of religious voters desire a different outcome than the law allows?

[Nextrush]

You mean precedents like "Dred Scott" and "Plessy vs. Ferguson." I wouldn't rule in favor of slavery and segregation, but they were once your sacred "precedents."

There are liberal judges ruling against the Pledge of Allegiance and for Gitmo terror suspects, so lets get some conservative judges who will stir up dust and in the style of Gen. George S. Patton: "Grab those precedents by the nose and kick em' in the a**."

And that includes the 1987 decision of the Supreme Court that was Jones' "precedent"
in this case.