> Shades of "you can vote for whoever you want to represent you, so long as they're a Communist who will govern according to the will of the party." I don't fo

> Shades of "you can vote for whoever you want to represent you, so long as they're a Communist who will govern according to the will of the party." I don't follow. Removing people from the pool of eligible candidates because they want this nation to be a theocracy is not quite the same. We don't keep murder criminalized because God said so (although that was undoubtedly the reason murder laws were first codified in human history), we keep it criminalized because we understand that murder removes the agency of another person to remain alive. > I think you have a serious misunderstanding of the establishment clause. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" If the only justifiable reason for a policy is religious, then it is on the face of it prohibiting the free exercise of religion (as the result of that policy should be a personal decision consistent with each individual's religious belief or lack thereof). The Court is likely to revisit several precedents derived from Roe v Wade. Many of these precedents will likely be sexual or marriage related in nature. Griswold v Connecticut (the right to buy and use contraceptives), Lawrence v Texas (the right to be private in consensual sexual activity between adults), Obergefell v Hodges (the right of same-sex couples to marry) have been explicitly mentioned by Justice Thomas as decisions that should be revisited. This means that in the future, there will likely be a case related to each of those that ends up making its way to the Court. Taken broadly, this decision basically guts the right to privacy. I expect this to get really bad and cast a much wider net than anyone expects, before it's over with.