Well wondering, and assuming are two different things. If the person answers that they will follow the law, and you decide that their religious beliefs are too deeply held, and makes them unqualified because of it, then you have effectively created a religious test, and that my friends is unconstitutional-not just unethical or offensive.

On the contrary, Frist is confronting the reality that certain nominees, not all of them, have been filibustered because of their religious affiliation and beliefs. Glenn Reynolds and everyone else can pretend otherwise, but Charles Schumer and the other Democrat trolls on the Judiciary Committee have explicitly stated that they object to certain candidates because of their "deeply held beliefs." Case in point, William Pryor. He is a devout Christian, but as the Alabama AG, he has a track record of enforcing laws that he doesn't personally agree with. He is the public official who enforced the court order removing the ten commandments monument from the Alabama Supreme Court building. He has also enforced Alabama laws ensuring a woman's right to an abortion even though he is pro-life. He has done nothing professionally that would warrant the filibuster. Democrats are just using him as a Christian bogeyman to hold up to their liberal elitist, People for the American Way constituents as a bigoted Christian that they are protecting us from. Frist is correct that Democrats don't want Pryor and several others on the bench because of their "deeply held beliefs." Quit misstating the claims made by Frist and stop pretending that Democrats haven't done what they have admitted to doing.

Why is it that people who consider themselves moderate Republicans or Libertarians are as repulsed by Christians as are Democrats. Get over it.

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=8034

"No Catholics Need Apply
By David Holman
Published 4/15/2005 12:08:16 AM
Washington special interest groups -- notorious for their anti-religious hostility toward conservatives -- are conducting a coordinated smear campaign against Scott Bloch, George Bush's appointee to the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), which reviews and refers whistleblower disclosures to agency heads. In an interview with TAS, Pete Leon, legislative director for Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.), who has called for Bloch's resignation, revealed the fundamental anti-religious bigotry at the heart of the campaign. Articulating his objections to Bloch, Leon said, "He is a devout Catholic," then quickly added, after he realized his gaffe, the famously insincere line from Seinfeld, "Not that there's anything wrong with that."

And now the libetarians in the blogosphere are doing it too, because I suppose religious people are getting too "uppity." Where have I heard that before? And why the constant use of the smear-word THEOCRAT by so-called mainstream bloggers like Instapundit? Perhaps all of this bigotry is being exposed for what it is.

The assumption that religious judges -- men and women who have been trained in the law -- would ignore the law, doesn't strike you as similar in substance to an assumption that a man whose skin is darker than someone else's, might be more likely to go insane with lust and rape one's daughter?

'Cause it does strike me that way.