Article VI Section III

Article VI Section III
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
The purpose of the Senate (as far as Senate confirmation regarding judicial appointments) is to make sure that the candidates appointed by the President will adhere to the Constitution and advise the President of their concerns for those they do not believe will. Can someone please explain to me where it says people of faith need not apply? Apparently Senate Democrats don't feel the need to abide by this rule, rejecting anyone with a deep faith in God, (as they would likely be pro-life and a threat to Roe V. Wade). As illustrated above, this is absolutely unconstitutional. The hypocracy in this argument is that they are crying foul over Republican plans to modify Senate rules to disallow the filibuster for judicial nominees. I see, some 100 year old Senate rules are not to be broken but hey, the constitution's OK to trample on. And to hear it reported in the MSM, one would think the filibuster is being outlawed altogether. The simple truth is, we absolutely need to get rid of activist judges who refuse to rule based on the constitution. (For those of you who might have forgotten, we are a Constitutional Republic) If that means changing Senate rules, so be it. It is not the job of the court to legislate laws, that's reserved for Congress.
This weeks ruling proves the point. Looking across the pond for guidance instead of reading the document they are sworn to uphold is simply treasonous. Now I am actually opposed to the death penalty for a variety of reasons, but that's another post. Since Federal judges are appointed for life, ALL nominations to the court are critical.
The argument shouldn't be so polorized. Constitutionality should be the yardstick of measure for nominees, however, the left has NO basis in constitutionality. They are a fascist party, hijacked over time and blind to their position on the left - right scale They actually believe fascists are on the right side of that scale (Senators Clinton, Byrd, Shumer, Boxer, Levin et.al. take note) probably products of public education so I'll let it slide. The positives of this are that their power lies in a dying constituency. Mainly older Democrats (who can easily be tricked into believing the evil Republicans are going to steal their SS check), who have always been Democrats, mis-informed youngsters, (products of an academic stranglehold of artsy fartsy liberal arts profs who don't produce anything but bile), abortionists, (people who want to bear no responsibility for their behavior ) and a few other miscreants. This is NOT your grandfather's Democratic Party anymore and the information age is highlighting this problem 1000 fold. The fight is not only about abortion or gay marriage or the death penalty. If we have true constitutionalists on the courts, we WILL have a better society, perhaps like the ones they dream of too, with the power returning to the people where it rightly belongs. These judges will not stop until we stand up and fight. Congress should take control of the direction of this country, not a judicial coup.