The editorial page’s conservatism certainly doesn’t extend to immigration. On that, they’re not just liberal, but self-righteously and smugly liberal.
But anyway, that the GOP has been bad at picking good Supreme Court justices, while the Democrats are perfect at picking horrible justices is certainly true. But the fact remains that Roe could be overturned if Romney were to get the chance to replace Ginsburg (yeah, I know that assumes Roberts wouldn’t pull an obamacare), and the GOP takes the Senate allowing Romney to appoint a conservative (assuming Romney would keep his word and do so). Romney might also get to replace Kennedy, and Roe is one of the issues where he goes left.
So it could very well happen. The GOP should try playing up the federalism angle more. Many believe a conservative Sup Court would issue a ruling banning abortion, or that overturning Roe would itself ban abortion. The truth of course is that it would simply return the matter to the states where it belongs.
Who knows, that might be effective. Tell the people of [insert battleground state here] that you trust them to set their own abortion policy, free of interference from the values of other states that may be very different.
Yeah, the WSJ’s editorial page is pro-illegal immigration. It is one of the main reasons I see the WSJ ed page as “iffy.”