The entire point of freedom of (and from) religion is that your belief status does not, and should not, disqualify you from any government position. As such, her personal beliefs are immaterial. The only qualification required is a good grasp of law, particularly the Constitution, and other assorted historical documents. She’s perfectly qualified for the position.Well, a rabid atheist might claim that holding religious views automatically clouds your judgement, because believing in a magic bearded man in the sky automatically makes you sound like a nut who shouldn't be on the SCOTUS.
The opposite is also true. A rabid Christian might claim that not holding religious views automatically clouds your judgement, because believing everything came about by random chance cheapens the sanctity of life, and somebody so callous shouldn't be on the SCOTUS.
The separation of church and state, as well as the freedom of religion, allows both religious and non-religious people to hold office, as well as to believe things that other people think are bad.
Ford had ample opportunity to file a police report at the time. The matter was thoroughly investigated and it was concluded that her testimony has more holes than Swiss cheese. I can’t base my judgement on he-said-she-said - either there’s evidence of impropriety or not. The man is innocent, unless he can be proven guilty. Since he was not found guilty in a court of law, calling him a rapist is slander. We’ve been over this, in this specific section, and we arrived at the conclusion that slanderous accusations have no place on the board. Everyone was up in arms when the other side of the aisle was calling Joe Biden a rapist (he was also accused of sexual impropriety, not to mention his weird penchant for sniffing people), but when it’s Kavanaugh we’re supposed to accept accusations at face value. Double standards are not a good way to have a balanced debate - either we’re calling both of them rapists based on nothing *or* we follow the “innocent until proven guilty” train of thought and don’t throw baseless accusations around. I don’t care either way - the man’s not a rapist, he was never convicted of rape.Evidence is usually scarce in cases of rape. Unless you can gather DNA evidence immediately, it's just going to be a "he says, she says" situation.
Trying to, or talking crap during a riot? Nobody denies that a riot took place. If memory serves, when arsonists tried to burn down a federal building during the BLM riots, we called that a “summer of peace”. I can’t muster the strength to care about a bunch of crazies entering a building, making a mess and then leaving in an orderly fashion when prompted to. At the end of the day, what happened doesn’t fit the definition of an insurrection - there was no forward planning, no organised group of individuals with a plot and no actual attempt to overthrow the government. It was a large group of very discontent citizens who took out their frustrations in the worst way possible. Those are the findings of America’s top law enforcement agency, and I have no reason to distrust those findings. If anything, given prior record of anti-Trump bias within the F.B.I. (lest we forget the Strzok messages, or the fabricated Steele dossier that launched a long investigation into absolutely nothing), the fact that they found nothing to support the insurrection theory is even more convincing than if the investigators were unbiased.Trying to murder the Vice President and members of Congress is nonetheless serious, even if the people were too disorganised to have a plan for actually overthrowing the government after halting Biden's election certification.