Just out of curiousity...is there anything else conservatives here care about here other than Roe v. Wade? Because I have not heard one. I've never seen such tunnel-vision in my life.
Well, speaking for myself I believe America is facing no two greater threats today than Islamic terrorism and the attempt to create a judicial oligarchy. The constitution was written in plain language with clear roles for the federal and state governments and the people--also, for the three branches of the federal government. The Supreme Court (and, frankly, various Presidents, by allowing it to happen) have trampled on the clear intents of the Framers and there is no greater example of this than Roe v. Wade. For those of us who care deeply about the role of the court in America today, Roe v. Wade is the poster child for all that is wrong with it. And then taking SCOTUS out of the equation, heck, maybe I'm just funny this way, but I don't like baby killing.
The reason Roe is so important is that it's the most blatant example in the past century of the Supreme Court rendering a flat-out unconstitutional decision. It's such a ludicrous ruling that it sets the gold standard for judges abusing their power. If a nominee isn't willing to overturn that ruling, then he or she can't possibly support the Constitution of the United States. Roe meets every possible criteria for a precedent ripe for overturning. It's clearly unconstitutional. It's hypocritical. It's unpopular (otherwise states wouldn't still be trying to find ways around it 32 years later, nor would it be a hot issue at the ballot box). It was scientifically dated even in 1973, let alone today when we have readily available ultrasound and fetal surgery is now being performed, with the unborn child regarded as a patient.
It's not just Conservatives who have what you call tunnel-vision. The Libs have been screeching for years in fear that Roe v. Wade may be overturned. IMO, the reason this particular ruling is so important is not because it's about abortion; rather, it was a turning point for the Supreme Court as far as judicial 'activism'. Constitutional law experts have said for years that it is weak, yet it has been allowed to stand.
It seems to me that a good attorney could argue for 'anything goes' based on that privacy premise. Smoking and possession of marijuana, for example.
Grutter v. Bollinger, Gonzales v. Raich, Lawrence v. Texas, Kelo v. New London...
How's that for a few? I had them all on my tag line for a while as examples. Any new SCOTUS appointee needs to have a record that would tend to show they'd reject these lameass precedents.