Replies

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?

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.

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.

See my post #90, it partially addresses this. However, do you wish to counter judicial activism by personal views with judicial activism by personal views? IMO, simply emplacing a strict constructionist would eventually lead to a decision or, more likely, series of decisions that eviscerate Roe v. Wade. That is why libs shriek like vampires on garlic bread at the notion of one being nominated to SCOTUS.