Nice try, but no stogie. I could slur you the same way, Hank, by saying that pro-judicial activism "conservatives" are no conservatives at all. Reality, as usual, is far more complicated than you or I acknowledge here. You can point at the Texas case decided by Gonzales and scream that he's pro-abort - yet should he engage in judicial activism to overturn a law BASED UPON HIS PERSONAL VIEWS? That is the road to judicial tyranny, IMO.
So why don't you turn down the inane Bushbot rhetoric and back up your position with facts and reason instead of slurs and emotions.
yet should he engage in judicial activism to overturn a law BASED UPON HIS PERSONAL VIEWS?
Q: Has he ever voted to overturn a law? Hmmm.......?
I may be wrong, but I believe the "law" you are talking about being "overturned" is Roe v. Wade - as in, AppyPappy wants a SC Justice who would overturn Roe v. Wade.
Roe v. Wade is not a law - it is a ruling that unconstitutionally disallowed the states from enacting laws to restrict or eliminate the murder of human beings who still reside in the womb. It doesn't take a judicial activist to overturn a demented ruling that possessed not a shred of constitutional foundation - a ruling which itself was solely based upon the PERSONAL VIEWS of the judicial activists who infested the Supreme Court at the time.