Its not the results that are in dispute. Hindsight is 20/20. You make up your own rules to revise history. The implication you make is that Reagan purposely sent pro-choicers to sit on the SCOTUS. While an rational argument can be made for SDO, the same can not be said of J.Kennedy.
>>>>>republican presidents don't send litmus test justices up for SCOTUS - they can't be confirmed anyway. they send constitutionalists ....
Oh really now. LOL If you nominate an originalist to the SCOTUS, you're guaranteed to get someone who believes Roe v Wade is bad law. At the same time you're almost assured they'll be a solid conservative who thinks abortion on demand is an abomination and the right to life is guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence.
>>>>....(when they get it right, as Bush 43 has, regardless of the case outcomes).
Bush hasn't gotten it right. No one knows how Roberts and Alito will turn out years from now. Another attempt to build up Bush43`s record, at the expense of the Reagan legacy.
>>>>>and yes, pro-choice republican politicians can and do support constitutionalist judges
I know what an originalist is. One who believes in original intent or original meaning. I know what a textualist is. That is what J.Scalia calls himself, a original meaning textualist. I know what a strict constructionist is. What J.Thomas and J.Scalia are not. I don't know what a "constitutionalist" means. Maybe it means what Rudy Giuliani stands for. What that is, I don't know.
Alito and Roberts, justices in that mold, are the kinds of judges republicans can get confirmed to the SCOTUS. and they are fine.
they cannot get openly anti-Roe justices confirmed, that's just the political reality of it.