- He has to be pushed to even give implied support for Griswold v. Connecticut and Eisenstadt v. Baird.
- He is clearly insufficiently committed to at least seriously considering overturning Roe v. Wade, and even implied cautious support for it.
so you want him to strongly oppose Roe but also strongly support the cases that provided Roe's legal underpinning?
More than anything, I just want some consistency here - cautiously Supporting roe but being skeptical of cases that allow contraception makes little sense. But yes, I would prefer a judge who supports contraception (Grizwold/Baird), but opposes Abortion (roe).
God forbid we have a judge that applies the law without regard to its implications for specific policy issues.
