As to that I said about entities being for or against what you are for or against. The Supreme Court being a branch of government makes the fight to make it more conservative not fall under what I was talking about. Especially since bringing the court to the right would by proxy make it more in line with the Constitution, since it's libs on the court who make rulings against the clear intent of the Constitution.
The best analogy I can give about what I said before it this. I would strongly oppose the government passing any kind of legislation making homosexuality illegal. Or islam in this country. Much as on an emotional level, I would like that to happen, on a rational level, as a Christian, those would be two horrible things to happen. Because of the government could make those things illegal and a crime, they could also make Christianity illegal, and put people like me in jail. That's what I mean, and that's why entities like the ABA should have NO opinion one way or another on issues, especially issues like abortion.
NOW and NARAL strongly opposed Souter and O'Connor as well, because of their stands on abortion and their supposed beliefs that the Constitution is not a "living document." Souter and O'Connor have not fulfilled NARAL's fears nor conservative's wishes. The truth of the matter is that liberals think the GOP is far more conservative than it is, so they believe that anyone affiliated with the party or its members are radical right-wingers who are on the verge of instituting a theocracy. It wouldn't matter if Bush cloned Ruth Bader Ginsburg and appointed her-- NOW and NARAL would insist she was a closet Right-Wing fundamentalist Christian Zionist warmongering anti-woman, homophobic, racist clinic bombing fanatic.
Your analogies don't work because homosexuality and moderate Islam do not result in genocide. Abortion is not a moral issue, but a human rights one-- I am not that interested in jailing people for immoral or irresponsible sex, I am interested in keeping them from killing the baby. Human being=person, kiling person=murder, murder is, in most cases, a crime. Returning to your example, gay pedophilia and terrorist Islam *are* legally proscribed, because they injure or kill people.
I am most certainly aware that giving the government too much power for good can result in its use for evil. This is why I am a passionate believer in very small government. You are absolutely correct that the government should not outlaw particular religions, and I can see the effects of a government culture that seeks to restrict Christianity. I agree that the government has no right to regulate religious practice. However, this is entirely irrelevant to abortion which , again, is not a religious or moral issue. It is certainly immoral, and my religious strongly opposes it, but the reason one person cannot kill others is that it is a violation of their inalienable right to life.