Well, yes, they can, and they did. And, yeah, Kamala made Kavanaugh her bitch. But none of that will sway a Republican majority who have already made up their mind that they will confirm whoever Trump puts in front of them. I mean, hell, the nominee can come right out and say that she rips the heads off of young children and drinks their blood, and the Republicans wouldn't care, as long as she checks off the evangelicals' checklist - mainly that she's anti-abortion.
Sure, but I think we're at cross purposes here.
I was responding to the suggestion that her membership of a particular religious group was incompatible with being a Supreme Court judge, or being a judge at all, because the oath she swore on joining the group is incompatible with her oath of judicial impartiality, her First Amendment rights notwithstanding.
While it's possible to interpret the wording of the promises she made when joining the group as conflicting with her judicial oath, it's certainly not the only interpretation (I wouldn't have read it that way), and it's a pretty serious allegation to make about a sitting judge that she allows her membership of a particular religious group to override her duty to apply the law faithfully and impartially -- it's as serious as suggesting she takes bribes, and it needs to be supported with evidence.
All I was saying is that, to my mind, while it's legitimate to question her about any potential conflict between her religious faith and her duties as a judge, and the circumstances in which she would think it appropriate to recuse herself from hearing particular cases because of her religious beliefs, the simple fact of her religious affiliation shouldn't, on its own, disqualify her from judicial office.
Certainly, the Republican senators may be determined to endorse her anyway, whatever she says about keeping her religious views out of her judicial decisions, or not, but that's a separate issue.
www.cnbc.com
