[Pinkbell]

There is nothing ill advised or bad about it. Trump himself is opposed to Roe vs. Wade and has said he will appoint pro-life justices. He has made no secret of it. The Democrats know it. That’s why they are running the opposite platform (as usual). I wouldn’t have supported Trump in the primaries had he not said he would put pro-life justices on the court.

[GoKnow]

There is nothing ill advised or bad about it. _____________________________________________ Actually, I agree with you. My use of the term in this situation was indeed ill-advised. Even odder: I can't remember ever having had the occasion to use this somewhat stodgy term in writing before. Must have been the late hour. 

[GoKnow]

I think it would be more accurate to say I was reacting to the fact that Pence appeared to be making eliminating RvW a centerpiece of his campaign message. Sure, that’s always been the goal of the pro life position, but Trump hasn’t specifically articulated that goal in any of his campaign speeches with regard to SC Justice selection. Perhaps Trump wanted Pence to do it for him; perhaps not.

But it’s noteworthy that RvW has so seeped into and degraded our culture that it’s now taken for granted across the political spectrum that no Presidential candidate can oppose it and win. Trump may be strong enough to put that notion to rest.