Telling the politicians that we will not vote for them if they do not act as we expect them to is not a "threat." It is the way a republic works.
I certainly agree with that principle hoc.
But that is not exactly what is happening here.
These folks are not telling the truth, in that they are painting lipstick on a pig.
Judicial temperament is what we want, not opinion!
You could easily end up with a Constitution rewriter in the form of a pro-life judge.
One of those folks who are the exact same copy of the current crop of believers that the Constitution Is a living, breathing document and it should be changed, interpreted and molded to todays social needs.
The judicial temperament we desire is strict constructionist. A temperament where personal opinion is not at all important. The Judge, should be neither pro-life not pro-choice in his judgments.
What is sought here is a judge who acts on personal opinion. This Judge would be wrong. How can you test this judge?
The question/demand/ requirement,should be one of temperament, not opinion on any issue except the Constitution.
What I am seeing here on this thread, is not a desire to get judges with proper judicial temperament, it is to get temperamental judges.
We do not want, need or desire activists of any cause, belief or deity. We want men/women that see the Constitution in it's true wisdom, who see the founder's desires as they were, and not as they should have been.
A judge with opinions on either side of issues and allows these opinions to shade his/her judgments is the worst kind of judge to be on our bench.
But this is what they are asking for, and that is why I profoundly disagree.