You write, and your pal Clarence concurs:
Some there are—many, perhaps—who are offended by public displays of religion. Religion, they believe, is a personal matter; if it must be given external manifestation, that should not occur in public places where others may be offended. I can understand that attitude: It parallels my own toward the playing in public of rock music or Stravinsky. And I too am especially annoyed when the intrusion upon my inner peace occurs while I am part of a captive audience, as on a municipal bus or in the waiting room of a public agency.
"Some there are?" Are you joking? But I digress.
Point The First: Obviously, the issue is not that the display of religion is offensive but that the establishment of any religion by a government is extremely dangerous (see the Middle East) and that the government sanctioned display of a specific religion strongly implies establishment. But then, you're the legal genius, Nino, you're supposed to know this. Now, don't get me wrong, my friend: I'm not for a moment suggesting that I think you're no genius at all but rather a genuinely mediocre mind with a taste for glib, obnoxious putdowns. I'd never suggest that.
Point The Second: Your distaste for rock music and Stravinsky speaks directly to your qualifications to remain seated on the Supreme Court. Anyone who can't understand either has absolutely no business making solemn decisions affecting this nation's future legal direction.
For no other reason than your godawful musical taste - but indeed, there are many other reasons - you deserve to be impeached, arrested, and subjected to 20 years of Don Ameche and Mitzi Gaynor.