By acting as though the separation of church and state means that religion should be banished from all aspects public life.

-You will have to be more specific. Where exactly is this happening? As a former Catholic who no longer believes, it seems to be that religion (i.e. Christianity) is present everywhere in public life. You really don't notice it until you are no longer part of the majority group. I really don't notice anyone trying to prevent this. If you are referring to using public money or governmental space, then that is a serious issue for me.

By forcing employers to pay for contraception and abortificants against their religious beliefs

-I go back and forth on this one. On one hand, I understand your concern. On the other hand, these are legal medical services and is it really fair to preclude someone from using certain medical services because the owner of a company disagrees? It seems to me that there is room to compromise on this.

By having a Senator question one's ability to serve on an appellate court based on their religious beliefs.

-Why is this an issue assuming there is not outright discrimination? And I would bet that over 90% of judges are Christian, so I'm not sure why this is an issue for you. If someone is a Scientologist, couldn't that be an issue if they make decisions based on what they believe? I don't want judges make decisions based on their religious beliefs.

By trying to ban Christian colleges and universities from requiring church attendance (see California).

-first I've heard of this, so I won't respond.

By trying to defund faith based iniatives that serving the public good, when similar acting but secular organizations face no such scrutiny.

-that depends on the organization and its mission when acting in this capacity.

By banning public aid to religiously based schools when secular private schools do receive such aid. Not to mention the threats of loss of accreditation and tax status.

-Yeah, I have real problems with this. Why should taxpayers be expected to pay for religious schooling? I would get rid of funding schools that are not public, with certain exemptions or if they meet certain accreditation standards.

By calling out anyone who is opposed to same sex marriage as a bigot (even though President Obama and Hillary Clinton held that belief until 2012)

-I'd say there is a good amount of bigotry involved in it since the we as a society have evolved in a pretty quick time.

By forcing people to endorse and support same sex marriage through their artistic work.

-If you sell to the public at large, you shouldn't be able to discriminate...period. Religion has been used as excuse to enslave, segregate, and discriminate for centuries. I oppose it. If you sell cakes to the public at large, you should not be able to discriminate against certain groups for religious reasons. It was the same justification used to prevent blacks from entering diners, for example. Also, my wife once made wedding cakes as a side business. It takes skill, no doubt, but placing it under the guise of artistry is a serious stretch.

By prohibiting Catholic charities from placing adoptions due to their requirement to only place with heterosexual couples.

-I can see your point on this one.

In general, I think the Christian right's assumption of victim status here is seriously delusional. Try being a non-Christian in this society and get back to me.

About the concept of "Religious Liberty" when it's often (but certainly not always) promoted by people who say things like "America is a Christian nation" or do things like try to block mosque construction or tear down, either physically or attempt to legislate against, eruvs?

Everything you said was all well and good, but like most things related to religious liberty is entirely focused in not making Christians feel uncomfortable.

There's a reason why you don't hear about massive ground swells of support of the GOP from Jews (allowing for some support from the ultra-Orthodox), or support from Muslims, Hindu or other religious groups. We're all scared to death of what is always called "religious liberty" but usually just means Christians get to do what they want while also pissing all over us.

I agree with the overall gist.

There are situations where liberals want an essentially private entity to abide by some law that is against that entity's religious beliefs.

That said, I don't think religion is appropriate in any government funded activity. Period.

But Dave's point stands. Obama picked a weird fight there. If someone wants a particular healthcare plan - regardless of the religious views - if the employer isn't offering it, why can't the market for labor sort that out? Why can't people just refuse to work there?

--
Sometimes I rhyme slow sometimes I rhyme quick.

shadiness.

Though, honestly, I don't think it's an unreasonable legal position to say that the Constitution provides for impeachment as the means to hold a particularly egregious president accountable and that if there has been criminal conduct, an indictment has to wait until after he is out of office. I haven't gone back and read the Federalist Papers etc. about that issue. I think it's a defensible position. It's not absolute immunity from wrongdoing.

To my larger point, however, it's up to the Senate to protect the country from such shenanigans.

But they have abdicated that responsibility, so we're pretty much screwed.

Considering they just confirmed a Deputy AG who, while in private practice, represented a Russian Bank that is implicated in the investigation, they're basically a rubber stamp. Which is pathetic, relative to their Constitutional role and their historical stature.

...per an article I was reading about Kavanaugh today.

Kavanaugh also had a key role writing a section of Starr’s final report documenting the president’s affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky and Clinton’s efforts to conceal the relationship. According to journalist Bob Woodward’s 1999 book “Shadow: Five Presidents and the Legacy of Watergate,” Kavanaugh and another Starr attorney objected to an early draft that included graphic sexual details about the relationship — a move that showed some early reservations about the risk of such investigations overstepping their mandate.

"The narrative shows how pathetic Clinton is,” Kavanaugh argued to Starr, according to the Woodward book, “that he needs therapy, not removal. It's a sad story. Our job is not to get Clinton out. It is just to give information.” But the independent counsel resisted making the change. “I love the narrative!” Starr said.

And more:

After Kavanaugh had begun serving a life-time appointment as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, he again weighed in on the problems with investigations that can befall a White House. Harkening back to the Clinton era, Kavanaugh wrote in the Minnesota Law Review that he had an even larger change of heart about the immunity a president should enjoy while in office.

“Like many Americans at that time, I believed that the President should be required to shoulder the same obligations that we all carry,” he wrote. “But in retrospect, that seems a mistake. Looking back to the late 1990s, for example, the nation certainly would have been better off if President Clinton could have focused on Osama bin Laden without being distracted by the Paula Jones sexual harassment case and its criminal investigation offshoots.”

Sounds like he was at the point where you are, but his experience changed him.

While insisting Clinton had “brought that ordeal on himself” in his deposition for the case involving Jones, a former Arkansas state employee, Kavanaugh argued that Congress should make a change in law to allow a president while still in office to be immune from both civil lawsuits and “time-consuming and distracting” criminal investigations.

“The prospect of indicting a sitting commander in chief and trying them in court,” he wrote, “would cripple the federal government, rendering it unable to function with credibility in either the international or domestic arenas.”

For “bad behaving or law-breaking” presidents, Kavanaugh insisted the proper venue was impeachment — not the courts.

And there is the rub. Go directly to impeachment and get the bad-acting President out of there rather than having a sitting President distracted by legal maneuvering and posturing.

that Kavanaugh believes that contracts cannot be regulated, because that would violate Freedom of Association. So, for instance, financial transactions and health insurance policies cannot be regulated, because they are contracts.

Notably, that would also apply to marriage.

Can anyone corroborate that he has been shown to hold that belief?