There is a big difference between "atheist religion preaching" (whatever that is), and objecting to certain fundamentalist claims by others.

The point of the thread, I thought, was to assert that no one who inserts his own personal religious views into the public record should be considered as a Justice of the Supreme Court. Scalia's and Thomas' often go way beyond what a justice ought to publicly espouse, no matter WHAT his private beliefs are.
In lower courts, such pronouncements can get one removed from certain cases, but some justices treat a 'lifetime appointment' as an excuse to meddle and sound off in inappropriate ways.