The California supreme court justice Leondra Kruger is widely considered to be a possible successor to Stephen Breyer, who recently announced his imminent retirement from the U.S. Supreme Court. Around a decade ago, Ed Whelan notes, Kruger forcefully argued against the idea of a “ministerial exception” to employment-discrimination laws:

As an assistant to the solicitor general, Kruger argued on behalf of the Obama administration in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC. The brief that she and other Obama administration lawyers submitted took a surprisingly aggressive stance against the very existence of a general “ministerial exception” to employment-discrimination laws. According to her position, religious organizations are limited to the right to freedom of association that labor unions and social clubs enjoy.

Kruger maintained that position at oral argument, to the amazement of even Justice Kagan. . . . The Obama administration’s position, [Chief Justice Roberts explained], “is hard to square with the text of the First Amendment itself, which gives special solicitude to the rights of religious organizations. We cannot accept the remarkable view that the Religion Clauses have nothing to say about a religious organization’s freedom to select its own ministers.”

To be sure, Kruger might contend that she was simply representing the position of her client. But it would be entirely proper for the White House and, if she is nominated, for senators to probe whether she in fact helped form the government’s “amazing,” [in Kagan’s words], position against religious liberty.

Early Friday morning, Israel attacked military installations near the Iranian cities of Isfahan and nearby Natanz, the latter being one of the hubs of the country’s nuclear program. Jerusalem is not taking credit for the attack, and none of the details are too certain, but it seems that the attack involved multiple drones, likely launched from within Iran, as well as one or more missiles fired from Syrian or Iraqi airspace. Strikes on Syrian radar systems shortly beforehand probably helped make the attack possible, and there were reportedly strikes on Iraq as well.

Iran itself is downplaying the attack, but the S-300 air-defense batteries in Isfahan appear to have been destroyed or damaged. This is a sophisticated Russian-made system positioned to protect the Natanz nuclear installation. In other words, Israel has demonstrated that Iran’s best technology can’t protect the country’s skies from the IDF. As Yossi Kuperwasser puts it, the attack, combined with the response to the assault on April 13,

clarified to the Iranians that whereas we [Israelis] are not as vulnerable as they thought, they are more vulnerable than they thought. They have difficulty hitting us, but we have no difficulty hitting them.

Nobody knows exactly how the operation was carried out. . . . It is good that a question mark hovers over . . . what exactly Israel did. Let’s keep them wondering. It is good for deniability and good for keeping the enemy uncertain.

The fact that we chose targets that were in the vicinity of a major nuclear facility but were linked to the Iranian missile and air forces was a good message. It communicated that we can reach other targets as well but, as we don’t want escalation, we chose targets nearby that were involved in the attack against Israel. I think it sends the message that if we want to, we can send a stronger message. Israel is not seeking escalation at the moment.