The only relevant factor is whether Roe v. Wade is constitutional or not. If it’s not constitutional then it must be repealed.
You yourself admit there's an implicit right to privacy written into the constitution, and it doesn't get any more private than a pregnant woman discussing the possibility of needing to terminate that pregnancy with her doctor. I continue to hold the position that the reasoning for overturning Roe is much more unconstitutional than the reasoning behind the initial decision establishing it as precedent. It's also obvious that the justices of the time were far more impartial on this topic, whereas naked political and religious motivations show up everywhere in the majority opinion overturning it.
Being religious doesn’t disqualify anyone from holding a position on the court.
No, but being in a certifiably insane cult certainly should. I'd say the same thing about a justice who believes in Scientology, and that's a cult with a much larger mainstream footprint.
My mistake. I disagree with your characterisation of the Democratic Party as "largely Christian", though. The Republican line that Democrats are all godless heathens is a straw man, but there is some truth in it, since the number of Americans who identify as religious has been declining for years, AFAIK.
Correct, but despite that decline, the religious minority continues to hold undue power over our laws and government. How many of our federal representatives identify as practicing Christians? 80%? More?
If you want to accomplish something important, you should do it in the right way when such a method exists.
When such a method exists, sure. As I already said though, there's no point in the last fifty years where we would've had the votes necessary to codify Roe into federal law. At a time when our rights are actively under attack, I'll take an expansion of rights however I can get it. And if the only language some of these authoritarians understand when it comes to defending our rights is violence, so be it.
Separation of church and state does not forbid religious people from holding office. It forbids the state from giving preferential treatment to any particular religious views.
Precisely my point: she represents the 1700 people in her puritanical, medieval cult, and therefore she's incapable of representing anyone else. Just her being on the bench qualifies as giving preferential treatment to those extremist beliefs, let alone allowing her to vote on issues where her beliefs present a serious conflict of interest.
On top of that, at least three justices lied under oath about their intentions to overturn Roe v Wade during their confirmation hearings. That alone should be enough to trigger a recall in a properly functioning system, as lying about this one thing could mean they lied about absolutely everything else too.