Let’s face it, Libertarians don’t care about abortion; however to do want limited, constitutional government. Social Conservatives want abortion stopped, are tired of groups of people getting special rights, and also want limited government. Fiscal Conservatives want the government out of their business. I believe there is a large intersection of interests there and, it should be pointed out with strict constitutionalist judges we all get what we want.

Jeff Sessions answer is exactly right.

The point is NOT to decide wether abortion is a good thing or not. Heck, you may think that abortion is great and everyone should two, good for you! The point is decide wether abortion is guaranteed by the Constitution. Clearly it is not. Even some pro-choice people admitted that Roe was a stretch when it was decided, but they weren’t about to look the gift horse in the mouth.

If you don’t like that fact that certain things (guns and religion for instance) ARE protected by the Constitution and certain things (abortion and sodomy for instance) ARE NOT protected by the Constitution, then there is a process for changing that. It is called a constitutional amendment. You shouldn’t just try to cheat the system and do an end-around by getting judges to “interpret” things into and out of the Constitution just because it isn’t written to your liking.

But wait a second, doing it the RIGHT way is difficult isn’t it? Amending the Constitution actually requires that you convince people to agree with you rather than having a judge force your will upon them doesn’t it? Yeah stupid, and it is that way for a reason. It is SUPPOSED to be difficult to change the Constitution, because it is a very serious matter.

The way the Liberals (capital L liberals) have made it (by insiting that judges can simply make things up as they please), there are no longer 3 equally powerful branches of government as was intended by the founders. By far, the SCOTUS is the most powerful. There is nearly no check on their power. They can nullify almost anything anyone else does by simply declaring it unconstitutional, but no one can tell the SCOTUS that they are wrong. Oh, and even if we amend the Constitution to counteract the SCOTUS, guess who gets to interpret that amendment; the SCOTUS!

We need judges to return to being just judges and lawmakers.

OK, end of rant.

I can’t help but think, though, that an antilife Dem would never say that a prolifer could get his vote for being prolife.

But if it’s just this particular interpretation you’re have a problem with … we could clear that up.

He’s rock solid.

Sessions’ non-litmus test is whether the judge can put his/her desire for a particular social outcome aside and rule according to the constitution. Unfortunately, a judge nominated on the basis of “empathy” to a specific super-protected group isn’t terribly likely to display that level of intellectual honesty.