Roberts, Scalia, and Alito have been on the Court for several years now without advancing any particular theological agenda and without overturning Roe v Wade.

We have had threads on Dominionist theology, to which Palin ascribes. That's not Catholic, it's non-denominational.

And if we are in the grips of a centuries old conspiracy to take over the USA and the world, is this anything new, really?

I heard this theory from Infowar years ago, but then the claims were made that Jones was really a Jesuit disinformation agent. Who the heck knows?

We need to protect secularism.

I see you are new and I'm not attacking your concern, but give a little more.

Dominionism may not be Catholic. However if one looks at the history of the Catholic Church it is very dominionistic in many ways. Just to share with you I went to an alumni gathering here in Denver sponsored by my "Catholic" college alumni association a couple of years ago. Our new president was there. I also compared notes with some other alumni whom I had never met. I asked about the stance of the Catholic Church today. What I learned is that the Church has accepted the more aggressive proselytizing strategy that the Mormons and fundamentalists use. They have accepted the dominionist tendencies we now see.

As a former Catholic I can see it like I have never seen it before.

There was an interesting theme on the Dr Who series this year where the Dr and his companions encountered aliens call "Sleepers" they were threatening and taking over. They had a unique feature to them in that as long as you were looking at them and seeing them you knew they were there. Once you turned your back or they were out of sight you forgot they existed.

Conspiracies work best when they are deniable and they are invisible. There may not be conspiracy where "theocracy" movements are connects. I do see a lot of subterranean trends that really make me wonder.

BTW I am new to this page. I am not sure how to link back to an old thread. Things go so fast here.

I would not be surprised if they begin to make some rulings along religious lines. They are smart enough to know that they need the right opportunity in order to do it. With my background I know how someone like Roberts and the rest think. I have had a very similar education. If Roberts and the others believe like I was taught they will be able to separate their beliefs from public policy.

In the Catholic view that I was taught the tendency was to "give to Caesar what is Caesars and to God what is Gods". What I mean by that is that in the view I was taught, public policy does not have to follow Catholic dogma. In conscience one could rule abortion as a legal right in the civil public policy arena. If he does not believe that then we could be in trouble.

"What went before". That is why judges, even strict Constitutionalist's as a religious Scalia, will be very reluctant to overturn previous rulings, as in Roe v. Wade.

If these justices like Scalia were truly "strict Constitutionalists" they would not have ruled for "Citizens United" the way they did. And Roberts would not have expanded the original case. I believe they use that term for their own political convenience.

I don't like Opus Dei or any of these three scoundrels on the high Court, but where's the beef?

How these men think and operate can be very subtle. There are a number of mental conventions that they can use to mask their real intent and action. They have very covert thinking patterns. I am familiar with some of them because I was taught in "Moral Theology" classes how to get around certain mental frames and moral codes and still have a good conscience. The "beef" of the matter could be right in front of you and still be unrecognizable.

Within the arena of the "Spanish Inquisition" there was a very radical underlayment of Opus Dei philosophy. In their mind their operations were "their work for God and Church." As human beings we are very good at "pretending not to know".

Some of the most outrageous decisions in recent decades from the SCOTUS, the stealing of the election from Al Gore, the campaign finance law gutting, and many others I would have to refer to my personal journal on my computer at home to list properly have me fretting and fuming about how dangerous the SCOTUS is under the reins of Chief Justice Roberts.

I am well educated about the High Court, Stare Decisis, and have a good working knowledge of it's history and which were some of the best (and worst) Justices in it's history.

I am praying that we have a long run of liberal to liberal leaning POTUS' to get the court realigned into a more progressive line-up similar to the Warren Court.

I dearly miss Hugo Black, Bill Douglas, Bill Brennan, and Thurgood Marshall; who are my personal favorites.

In any event, thanks for the informative post.

tried to legalize the killing of abortion doctors.

South Dakota, Nebraska, and Iowa.