Why do you hate Catholics when we both love Fire Emblem?

So... I'm just supposed to ignore that they immediately start attacking a potential nominee based on her religion?  Your favorite website says it's not true, so what I'm watching happening in real time INCLUDING ON THIS VERY THREAD, isn't happening?

You REALLY need to get off that site, because it's messing with your head.  Again, the country is on a religious ebb.

If it's a strong Originalist, then conservatives will be happy.  If it's an activist judge, then they will oppose.

Would you care to provide any evidence that she is a proponent of a church-led state?

I don't necessarily hate people that are Catholics.  I just have very negative views towards the institution due to the whole priest scandals and the church pretty much sweeping them under the rug till recently when they finally stopped protecting past abusers.  

I actually kind of like the new pope compared to the Hitler youth former one.   He is actually trying to make amends and be more inclusive.  My last two girlfriends were actually catholic.  

My problem like many is that I generalize too much.  It's more my distaste of the institution than most people that belong to religion.

Also on religion.  I don't care what most people believe but I do care when their beliefs start encroaching on me.   There might be a god but I don't think any religion on Earth is the correct and only true religion.   I have very negative views of organized religion because they are run by humans and humans will always be flawed.   That's why I've just kind of adopted my own and to me nature is god.

I'm not just anti catholic.   I'm anti almost all religion. She could be mormon for all I care and my view still wouldn't change.  Actually I'd probably make fun of her more if she was mormon.  Just barely looking into her past she is just someone that Notre Dame college put all their backing behind to try to advance her career to eventual highest court.  Looks like their strategy has worked.

Least I can say I don't belong to an organization that supported and hid pedophile priest that molested and raped little boys for the past centuries.

Yet, there are atheist who engage in pedophilia so...

And you think that's equivalent? 

Does that mean that Engel v. Vitale, Brown v. Board of Education, Miranda v. Arizona, Roe v. Wade, Lawrence v. Texas, and Obergefell v. Hodges can now be safely ignored if a state feels strongly enough about it?

And the silliest part of this is that Judge Barrett is likely to do exactly as you wish.  As a judicial conservative, she'll put most hot-button issues to the state and the voters if it doesn't actually violate the Constitution.  Overturning Marbury v. Madison isn't needed.  All you lose is the "I win" button here, not the ability to fight for them within the legislatures.

Multiple news agencies are reporting that tomorrow afternoon, the president will nominate Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court.  This is not a surprising turn of events as she had already been a finalist for Justice Kennedy's seat to which Justice Kavanaugh was selected instead.  Trump had allegedly stated later that he was saving her for Justice Ginsburg's seat and she'd become something of a favorite within conservative judicial after she weathered an attack from Democrats in her appeals court hearings based on her Catholic faith.

There was speculation that Trump might select Barbara Lagoa to the court due to political considerations (she being both Cuban and from the swing state of Florida), but the timing of the nomination and strict deadline if they wished to confirm her by Election Day meant that the already well-vetted Barrett with whom Trump was comfortable and was popular with his base had an overwhelming advantage.  McConnell further signaled that Barrett had sufficient support from within the Senate to confirm her.

In the Senate, there is bound to be a huge fight over this nomination, largely based on Republicans refusing to hold a vote for Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland four years ago when Justice Scalia died and general acrimony where it comes to a conservative judicial nominee.  Two Republicans have already signaled that they are against filling the position until after we have a winner in the upcoming election (though Murkowski has since softened to state that she may ultimately vote in favor of a nominee).  However, a majority of Republicans still control the timing and each of the remaining Senators that might have voted against the nomination due to either election concerns, perception as a moderate, or previous statements that they would oppose an election year nomination all signaled that they are in favor of confirming a new justice.

Since the 80s, nominations have generally taken 2-3 months to go through.  The current plan is to complete this nomination by Election Day a little over a month away so as to avoid the less-than-ideal possibility of having to confirm during a lame-duck session after the president and/or Senate have been voted out of office.  This leaves a little over a month to get this done.  Such speed was common in the past, and as recently as Ginsburg herself took only 42 days.  The current schedule calls for a process more along the lines of what the Reagan-appointed Justice O'Connor's experience in 1981, who was confirmed in 33 days.