[Aquinasfan]

I believe the word you're looking for is "pragmatic."

Nope. "Defeatist." With the next presidential election, conservatives could control the Supreme Circus for the next 20 years. And this person is preparing to surrender.

[papertyger]

With the next presidential election, conservatives could control the Supreme Circus for the next 20 years.

The democrats would sooner stage a coup than allow that to happen, and i'm being serious.

Look at the lengths they were willing to go in the run up to Roberts and Alito. They were laying the groundwork to ignore every past precedent of procedure to maintain the current court balance, and what they've learned from the result is they MUST get an iron clad litmus test from any future nominees.

[SuziQ]

I don't think we should give up on the political process, just not spin our wheels and spend our money, unnecessarily. I am a pragmatist, because I've seen what can be done by changing hearts and minds. The opinion polls bear this out. But to sit out an election using the excuse that the Republican nominee may be someone who is not as pro-life as I am is not the way to get things accomplished.

I don't like Rudy Giuliani as a Presidential candidate, but I believe he has said that he would appoint Justices to the Supreme Court who would be open to overturning Roe-v-Wade. If he's the nominee I WILL vote for him, because there would at least be the CHANCE he would keep his campaign promise. I know for a FACT that Her Heinous will do everything in her power to keep abortion as widespread as it is now, and she'll be supported in that by the MSM. She will also be the one to appoint at least 3 Justice to the Supremes because I believe that if she were elected, Ginsburg and a couple of others would resign. They haven't done so yet because they don't want George W. Bush deciding on their replacements.

I support Fred Thompson, because I think he's the only one of the top three who most closely represents my views, and he has said directly that he would appoint Justices who would be willing to overturn Roe-v-Wade, because he thinks it was bad law from the start. He doesn't support a Human Life Amendment, but I believe that's from his experience with the Senate. He knows that a HLA won't pass Congress, in order to be placed before the people, and he thinks that having the issue go back to the States will work more quickly to save babies than anything else. We may never get abortion outlawed in all the States, but we can save as many babies as we possibly can, with restrictions passed my most States that, when passed now, are routinely thrown out by the Supremes because of Roe.