olddude says: "The supreme court has all kinds of people all of which uphold the constitution even when it goes against their private beliefs. There would be no abortion or gay marriage or anything else if that wasn't true."

Sadly, that is not quite accurate, nor has it ever been. Abortion was not approved by all of the judges in Roe.v. Wade.

The problem is as noted in the article.... judges are chosen from people, and there is/was wide disagreement as to whether the Constitution even says anything to warrant a decision:

"Opponents of Roe have asserted that the decision lacks a valid constitutional foundation.[50] Like the dissenters in Roe, they have maintained that the Constitution is silent on the issue, and that proper solutions to the question would best be found via state legislatures and the legislative process, rather than through an all-encompassing ruling from the Supreme Court.[51]"

Now, note what that implies.... opponents of abortion are suggesting that they wish the question to be decided locally... as if people in Alabama get to follow a different standard than those in Oregon- just because the 'majority' is more conservative (which usually means Christian fundamentalist). Right now, various conservative states are inventing ways to get around Roe v. Wade by artificially applying laws & rules which restrict the freedom of doctors & clinics to operate. They don't try to overturn Roe... they just run clinics out of business with arbitrary... and usually unfair... requirements. They deny rights granted by the 14th Amendment using rules that are irrelevant to the actual issue. In some cases, a woman in one state can legally request an abortion, while her sister across the river cannot. This IS de facto inserting religion into judicial decisions in ways that SCOTUS can't easily defeat. It is imposing the beliefs of one group onto all groups.
   



Pete says: "bill, why should a public figures beliefs be private, if he is happy they are public. and if that figure is a Christian, profession of his beliefs is part of that faith anyway. I know we differ, but I am surprised if you agree with the ridiculous idea, that this judge [ however elevated ] should be disqualified for believing in creation [ if he actually does - and I hope so ]. I am sure the atheists would be screaming blue murder if Christian America suggested the same about evolutionist judges !."

Well Pete, what I believe is that judges should be chosen according to their rationality. And even though some folks wish to assert that there are 'rational' ways to defend the more conservative aspects of Creationism, this is **NOT** the majority view. Most scientists (as I and others have noted before here) understand & accept that evolution is a rational way of explaining the status of life as we find it.
   Judges are appointed ... and sometimes voted into office... to be fair & reasonable and apply the law- and even YOU will know of instances where they make rulings based on personal whim, careless reading of the law, bribery...etc.
   When bad rulings are appealed in the US, SCOTUS is the ultimate recourse. If they can get 5 members to refuse to hear an appeal, or to rule in ways that negate the opinions of the majority of citizens, we have a problem. The real problem is that Liberal vs. Conservative is not just two sides of the coin, like preferring pie to cake... but in the basic ways the two sides approach decision making. A very conservative judge, often because OF religious beliefs, may rule in fundamentally non-rational ways. When he does so, he is likely to be considered as unfit to BE a judge. If he hides the source of his opinions well by simple rationalizing about the law, he may continue with only suspicions as to his private beliefs, but when he makes statements like Scalia did, his basic competence to BE a judge is called into question!
Now.... there is no easy way to deal with this. The SCOTUS justices are appointed by presidents we VOTE for and approved by senators we VOTE for, which seems like a great way for 'the people' to have basic control over the process, but in the last few years...especially since 2010, when the Republicans controlled how voter districts are apportioned... attempts have been made to deny voting rights to those who are more likely to vote for Liberal senators.
You see? If the very process of getting fair & rational judges is undermined by UNfair & IRrational means, then judges like Scalia will be in a position to flout the Constitution at will and to flaunt their opinions openly.

If this debate were about ingredients in ground meat instead of abortion & gay marriage and similar topics, you'd see quickly that court rulings in favor of companies that try to sneak in dangerous additives to ground meat were irrational & unfair. Why not make the process of getting fair judgments into ALL issues work better?