You make a good point. But just look at the difference between Hunter and Bush. Bush is looking for judges who know the proper role of a judge. They would almost certainly overturn Roe, at least, Alito and Roberts. Therefore, if you're looking for judges who would do that, that requirement is enough. However, Hunter goes one step further and explicitly promises to nominate judges who would say that a fetus is a human being, and for that reason hostile toward abortion. Is that difference meaningless? I don't think so.
Dear LtdGovt,
"However, Hunter goes one step further and explicitly promises to nominate judges who would say that a fetus is a human being,..."
In that whether or not the unborn child is a human being was a CRITICAL QUESTION left unanswered in Roe, focusing on the fact that sonograms give evidence to the eyes that the unborn child is actually a human being does indeed go directly to overturning Roe. But not instating a judicially-created ban on abortion.
The tryants in 1973 specifically stated that they would not overturn Texas' (and every other state's) laws on abortion if they could determine that unborn children were, in fact, human beings. They did NOT say that the logical step, if the humanity of unborn children were adequately demonstrated, was to overturn state laws that permitted abortion to one degree or other.
Keep in mind that abortion laws were pretty much a mixed bag in 1973, with most states still severely restricting the practice, but with some larger states having liberalized laws, ranging from California's abused "health exception" to New York's nearly-anything-goes. There was never a hint that the tyrants, had they been forced to acknowledge the humanity of unborn children, would have struck down liberal abortion laws in states like California and New York.
The logical result of justices who see sonograms and who affirm the humanity of unborn children, in terms of judicial rulings, would be to rule that one of the necessary premises of Roe was vitiated, and therefore, Roe must be vacated.
And, that would be the legal limit, as well, if the question before the Court were whether an anti-abortion statute violated Roe. It really WOULD be a case of judicial activism if the Court, without being asked, were to rule that because unborn children are human beings, that abortion must be banned.
That being said, once Roe was overturned, that might be a logical next step for those seeking a ban of abortion, to find some way to bring a case to the Court where the question might be whether or not liberal abortion laws impermissibly infringe on the rights of unborn human beings.
sitetest