[Cicero]

Here's the deal. If you are willing to ACCEPT pro-life judges, then you will get your conservative, constitutional judges. If you are not, you won't.

It can be argued, of course, that the right to life is constitutional, that it is the most basic of the inalienable rights, which the Founding Fathers declared to be "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." If your life isn't safe from arbitrary seizure, then what good are liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

In any case, the practical point is that those who don't care about the abortion issue, or even those who are somewhat pro-abortion, can afford to compromise. Those who are pro-life will not compromise. They haven't for 30 years since Roe v. Wade, and they never will. So why not welcome them as allies of the conservative cause?

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

More then that Pro-life Judges will return the question to the States where it will have to go back into the legislative process where it belongs.

This is constitutional. This is how the system is suppose to work. That is the big problem with Pro-Abortion judges. They want to circumvent the legislated process and they do it with more then just abortion.

[Huck]

I think there is a distinction to be made, first of all, between being anti-Roe and anti-abortion. A Supreme Court judge can be anti-Roe, and believe that the question should reside with the state legislatures. That is Scalia's position, so far as I know, and it is not a pro-life position. It's a federalist position.

One can argue, as you point out, that a constitutional right to life makes abortion unconstitutional. That is not the view, so far as I know, of Scalia, and yet Scalia is acceptable to me.

Therefore, for me, a strict construction of federal authority is more important to me than is the assertion of a constitutional protection of prenatal life. I think that is an important difference.

Doesn't mean I can't play in the sandbox with pro lifers. Just means the issue to me is judicial activism, not abortion.