"“We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person 'to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.' Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs” (emphasis added). Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 at 495."
This ruling deals with the official actions of the State or Federal Government. The use of the word force is critical to the meaning of the ruling as well. It does not, nescessarily and as stated, extend to individual senators personal evaluations of a candidate under advice and consent. My guess is that it would be dismissed on this ground in the court of origination and that appellate review of the dismissal would be denied. One never knows though. With the right Judge and excellent argument there is a possibility of getting the ruling extended ot the Senators. I think I would want to find a whole bunch of tons of other case law in support first, before trying. Case law that would support the court overriding the privelege of the senators in acting in good conscience in representing their constituency more so than in just the extension of the ruling to the Senators individually. This may be more of a jurisdictional matter in the initials hearings than anything else, IMO (and I'm not a legal professional so take my opinions with a grain of salt).