Sometimes it seems as though the only thing that matters — certainly the most important thing to many — in considering a Supreme Court nominee is his or her personal opinion on abortion.
With that in mind, I wonder how many people who regard pro-Roe views as absolutely essential to secure a place in the vaunted “mainstream” will vote against, or urge a vote against, or refuse contributions to, Bob Casey, Jr., the Democratic candidate trying to unseat Republican Sen. Rick Santorum in Pennsylvania.
This query was prompted by some interesting poll numbers reported by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (HatTip: RealClearPolitics):
One of the most provocative, if hypothetical, findings of the poll involved Mr. Casey’s potential vulnerability on the abortion issue. Respondents who said they would vote for Mr. Casey and who said they were pro-choice were reminded that the Democrat, like Mr. Santorum, is opposed to abortion; 22 percent said that they would not vote in the election, while 6 percent said they would vote for another candidate.
One justification for pro-Roe’ers biting the bullet/holding their noses and casting a vote for Casey despite his pro-life views is that since both candidates oppose abortion that issue issue is taken off the table. The trouble with that for Alito nay-sayers is that since President Bush is not likely to nominate a pro-choice justice, what sense does it make to oppose a nominee on those grounds?
The Lexington column in the current Economist suggests that the Demos could benefit greatly from a situation in which abortion policy is decided by elections or legislatures and not by the supreme court.
The column notes particular the toxicity the current situation brings to all aspects of court nominations.