Except there are two problems. First, Rudy has re-defined strict constructionism to allow a judge to uphold Roe. And Rudy has also said a president appoints judges that match his views.
So since Rudy has been so pro-abort over the years, I'm completely unsold that he would appoint judges who would overturn Roe.
First, I reject any distinction between liberal and conservative from the social right. A social agenda of issues is neither demonstrative of a conservative, nor does it preclude a conservative from disagreeing with it. The social right has no claim to conservatism, simply by virtue of their social positions.
Well, I disagree on two levels here as well.
First of all, Reagan basically defined modern conservatism, and his social conservatism was robust. Not having at least some social conservative values makes a professed conservative a two-legged stool (with the other two legs being fiscal and national security). The only way conservatism works is when all three are embraced.
And second, the problems with Rudy go far beyond abortion and gay rights. He's also a gun-grabber. And an authoritarian. And no friend of the Bill of Rights. Rudy is simply too far left in the party - at the far fringes where it becomes difficult to tell him apart from, say, Joe Lieberman.
Second, yes, the rules you have laid out to me seem to indicate that conservative posters must only support certain positions, and if those positions or candidates are not vetted by the social right, they are to suffer the consequences if they use the very same language and tactics freely used by those here on the other side of the issue.
Once again, the rules here have always boiled down to a basic concept - conservative good, liberal bad. If you find that suffocating, so be it. But conservatism happens to be the core guiding mission for this website, and it's tough to pursue a conservative agenda if you're dragging a bunch of liberalism around with you.
Surely you understand that lower courts must comply with precedent, and that the USSC must at least consider the rationale for the precedent. As for Roe, it stands alone, and one more appointment will bring it down. Who should make that appointment? Should it be Hillary, or a Republican president?
First of all, Reagan basically defined modern conservatism, and his social conservatism was robust.
His social values were not what made him a good president, nor is he generally quoted as a designer by those who discuss conservatism. Nor am I in any way demeaning anyone's social values, as by definition we all have them in one way or another. But Reagan's lasting legacy has nothing to do with the social aspects of conservatism, but for his tax and defense policies, and his efforts to confront and help bring down the Soviet Union.
Not having at least some social conservative values makes a professed conservative a two-legged stool (with the other two legs being fiscal and national security). The only way conservatism works is when all three are embraced.
You oversimplify true conservatism, by attempting to put it into 3 narrow cubbyholes. True, most conservatives today have a distaste for abortion and ultimately want it sent back to the states. But a conservative's basic attitude is that of how he views the individual and the government.
A liberal wants the government to control the lives of individuals and wants it to be a strong, powerful central government. A conservative believes that individuals have responsibility for their own lives and their own fortunes, and favors government operating at the lowest level (state and local) thereby reducing the need for the federal government in many areas it operates in today.
Conservatives have a great appreciation for the institutions of government that the Founders created, and believe that the first duty of government is to protect the rights of all of its citizens and bring about a secure Nation.
Conservatism does not mean belief in any religion, but an understanding that religion must be free of government interference. Conservatives generally believe in balancing a budget and do not like deficit spending. They want a strong military, but do not necessarily support the need to be the world's policeman.
There is much more that encompasses classical conservatism, but I deny vehemently that many of the issues of importance to the social right are necessarily tied to conservatism.
Once again, the rules here have always boiled down to a basic concept - conservative good, liberal bad. If you find that suffocating, so be it. But conservatism happens to be the core guiding mission for this website, and it's tough to pursue a conservative agenda if you're dragging a bunch of liberalism around with you.
Yet there are many who are nothing short of radicals and extremists here who represent nothing conservatives embrace who operate with impunity simply because their issues fall within the scope of your defined "conservatism". But let me say that conservatives do not embrace extremism, nor the tactics they use.
True conservatives are unafraid of being challenged because they can fully support their positions.
I'm not going to debate Rudy with you as you seem to want to turn this discussion into a Rudy rant. My position on this is simple. Support whomsoever you want during these primaries, and when the time comes to vote Hillary or the Republican candidate, no conservative will pass that up.