Regarding the religious beliefs of judicial nominees: The objection of legislators to the nominations, if you read their questions carefully, is not to the fact that a nominee has religious beliefs, or the content of those beliefs, but to the willingness either verbally expressed or demonstrated by the nominee to allow his or her beliefs to interfere while acting as a secular judge ruling on secular law in secular courts.

You know, from a purely rational standpoint, ANY belief, secular or not, on the part of a nominee could affect a ruling in court. Would a belief that individual rights are subservient to group rights make a difference in rulings? Would a belief that some races are better than others? The latter would never make it to nomination, thank goodness. Unfortunately there are already plenty of the former in the judicial system.

Are there certain political views that should be excluded from a court? Who gets to decide which ones?

Sure, the Constitution mentions religion specifically in the First Amendment. But you know what? Contrary to current belief, that amendment was not designed to keep everyone but atheists out of government.

Besides, it's all a load of horseapples anyway. We know damn well why the Democrats are shooting down nominees. It's to keep people that may not be friendly to their agenda off the court, and religion is just a convenient excuse.

That part of the Constitution on "religious tests" was interesting.