your strawman is running away.
what i am saying is litmus tests are unconstitutional.
don't like it too bad. quit being a religious bigot.
that or prove that it has any affect on her judgeship.
you can't. she has excellent ratings from pretty much every group out there.
I'm attempting to point out that examining the groups a person is a member of, even including religious groups, is not the same as a religious litmus test.
The example given is to make that point.
We probably wouldn't want a former member of ISIS to be on the SCOTUS, but technically that is also a religious group. Simply being a member of that group would bring into question the judgement of the person being interviewed.
Of course, a fair interview would involve asking them why they were a member and if they still agreed with that group's goals.
If not, and they explain why and how they stopped being a member, it may not be an issue.
In the case at hand, the group (so far as I am aware) this current SCOTUS nominee was/is a member of is not comparable to ISIS, apart from being religious in nature.
Nevertheless, an examination of what that group stands for, and subsequent questions about her membership in it, seem perfectly reasonable.
That does not by any means equate to a religious litmus test, so far as I can tell.
Now, if someone said "I won't vote to confirm this person because they were a member of that group", without explaining the actions of that person and/or the group which they disagree with, would be questionable.
tl;dr - it seems unreasonable to me that everything in any way related to religion would be blocked from consideration.