"What Does It Mean To Be A Christian On The Bench?"

This article presents a sympathetic, uncritical digest of a dialogue between two conservative federal judges, centering their self-presentation without adversarial questioning or external perspective. The framing privileges the judges' own framings of judicial philosophy, religious motivation, and personal sacrifice; the author explicitly endorses their views ("I would encourage you to read the entire dialogue") and treats their claims as authoritative rather than contested.

Primary voices: federal judge, federal judge

• This article does not address criticisms of Judge Kacsmaryk's judicial record or controversial decisions
• This article does not acknowledge that Bostock v. Clayton County was decided by Justice Gorsuch (not presented as a 'textualist' disagreement requiring resolution) and that the three dissenting opinions cited by Kacsmaryk represent disagreement, not equipoise
• This article does not discuss the political context of Trump's judicial selection list or how it has influenced Ho's public positions
• This article does not explore potential bias concerns arising from Ho's wife's legal practice and his recusal obligations