Alito v. Warren
Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito's 1985 job application to be Assistant Attorney General under President Reagan is generating lots of interest because of his stated opposition to the Roe v. Wade decision. But reading the entire document (you can read it here) shows another area that should be of concern to church-state separationists. Alito writes:

In college, I developed a deep interest in constitutional law, motivated in large part by disagreement with Warren Court decisions, particularly in the areas of criminal procedure, the Establishment Clause, and reapportionment.

I will leave it to others to wonder about Alito's problem with the one-man, one-vote principle established in the reapportionment decisions. But what were the Warren Court decisions with respect to the Establishment Clause?

In Engel v. Vitale (1962), the Court held by a 6-1 vote that school-sponsered prayer in public schools, even if basically voluntary and non-denominational, was unconstitutional.

Abington Township v. Schempp (1963) determined--with an 8-1 vote--that public schools were not the place or time for officially sanctioned and organized Bible reading. Here it was determined that to meet Establishment Clause criteria of neutrality, activities must have "secular purpose" and that its "primary effect" must neither promote nor inhibit a particular religion.

Exactly which of these does Judge Alito have a problem with? Would he like to keep school-sponsored prayer or Bible readings in public schools?

His reference is not specific. Someone should ask him just what his beef with these important decisions might be. And if he's changed his mind about them, it would be nice to know when that happened, and why.