Why Judicial Standards—Not Religious Tests—Are What Matter

Svante Myrick recently criticized President Trump’s religious freedom efforts and the American Family Association Action’s Center for Judicial Renewal (CJR) judicial nomination standards. In response, Phillip Jauregui (AFA Action) clarifies their intentional criterion: they consider federal judicial candidates based on demonstrated commitment to interpreting laws according to the original meaning of the Constitution, not rewriting legislation from the bench.

Central to their evaluation is assessing a judge’s worldview—a factor that some on the political left have labeled problematic. Jauregui counters that discerning perspectives (including religious convictions) differs fundamentally from imposing a constitutional standard: while the U.S. Constitution forbids religious tests, it does not prohibit religious preferences. In other words, citizens may prefer judges whose values align with their own principles—something even early American leaders like Chief Justice John Jay supported.

Jauregui traces historical backing for this position:

• Supreme Court rulings like Church of the Holy Trinity affirmed that America is a “Christian nation,” while still upholding religious liberty for all.
• Justice Joseph Story and others recognized Christianity’s central role in informing our legal foundations and civic values.

Conclusion:
The article reaffirms that evaluating judicial nominees by their commitment to constitutional fidelity—including their ethical or faith-informed worldview—is both historically rooted and legally sound. To explore the full argument and supporting references, read Phillip Jauregui’s original piece.