[Do not dub me shapka broham]

I only raised the subject because her defenders cite her faith, repeatedly, as one of this nomination's strong points.

If you peremptorily dismissed the issue of her religion-which should be done in any case, since there are no religious tests for any office in the United States-then you would find defending her qualifications-if they can even be characterized as such-much more difficult.

[jwalsh07]

If you peremptorily dismissed the issue of her religion-which should be done in any case, since there are no religious tests for any office in the United States-then you would find defending her qualifications-if they can even be characterized as such-much more difficult

What are your qualifications to judge her qualifications? Are you a constitutional lawyer? Do you head a firm of 400 lawyers? Been named one of the top 100 lawyers in the country by National Law Review? Been the White House Counsel?

A short resume will do.

[GraceCoolidge]

I only raised the subject because her defenders cite her faith, repeatedly, as one of this nomination's strong points.

I don't think this is the point of citing her faith. The issue is the dearth of information about her legal philosophy. I don't believe commentators are pointing to her faith as a qualification in and of itself; rather, the point is that someone of her faith background is unlikely to embrace the liberal social positions that seem frequently to lead Judges into legislating from the bench.