I think since the overturning of Roe, the abortion issue has become largely irrelevant to the presidency. Abortion is homicide and homicides are adjudicated at the state level.

NB, in regard to certain neuralgic issues, Republican appointees to the Court were given to siding with the preferences of law faculties and the har-de-har public interest bar. The frequency with which they did so and the issues on which they did so varied. Some of these issues should have been decided 9-0 had professionalism and integrity been guiding the Court and their juvenile clerks. The chronic defectors included Harry Blackmun, John Paul Stevens, and David Souter. The episodic defectors included Warren Burger, Lewis Powell, Sandra Day O’Connor, and Anthony Kennedy. (In Burger’s case, some of it was his gaming to be the one to assign the Court’s opinion). Have a gander at John Dean’s account of how the Nixon Administration vetted court appointments. While the recalcitrance of the main body of Senate Democrats (and the usual pansies in the Republican caucus) was tremendously important, the Nixon people were doing everything with the left hand.

One other problem: the Senate Republican caucus. From 1913 to 2001 five Democratic nominees to the Court met with some resistance from the Senate Republican caucus.

A. Lewis Brandeis (1914)

B. Hugo Black (1937)

C. Sherman Minton (1949)

D. Abe Fortas / Homer Thornberry (1968)

About 1/4 of the Republican caucus objected to Minton, whose nomination was also subject to complaints by editorial boards which commonly favored the Democrats. (The complaint was that Truman was using court appointments to reward cronies; there was nothing facially wrong with Minton’s preparation).

About 40% of the residue of Republicans in the Senate objected to Black. Black was a member of Congress and a loyal soldier of Roosevelt’s at a time when the constitutionality of policy initiatives was at issue and when the President had attempted to pack the Court. Black’s experience on the bench was limited to a brief run as a local justice of the peace.

The bulk of Republicans objected to Brandeis and his nomination was sufficiently controversial that confirmation hearings were held, something previously atypical. Brandeis had never held a judicial position. He was a prominent figure in the efforts to pursue social policy through lawsuits.

Large blocks of the Republican and Democratic caucus objected to the Fortas / Thornberry two-step. Fortas place on the Court was inappropriate to begin with (he was a crony of Johnson’s with no judicial experience), but Republicans let it slide. By 1968, his conduct on the Court had offended a critical mass of people in Congress and there was sub rosa knowledge of sketchy conduct on his part and on his wife’s part.

The whole scheme was instigated by Earl Warren, who had submitted a legally dubious contingent resignation letter. Congress should have refused to consider any nominees on the grounds that there was no vacancy. Warren’s object was to arrange for Johnson to pick his replacement, or, failing that, to have Hubert Humphrey pick his replacement, or, failing that, to have Richard Nixon stuck with him. The scheme collapsed in 1969 when Fortas was compelled to resign from the Court in lieu of facing impeachment proceedings and a possible criminal prosecution of his wife.

IOW, Republicans objected when Democrats nominated people with dubious preparation, nominated people with irregular procedures, and nominated people who had been political partisans. They were remarkably slovenly when Democrats nominated people with passable black letter qualifications (Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer being blatant examples).

Throughout this time, Democrats in the Senate successfully blocked Republican nominees in 1931, 1969, 1970, and 1987 (2x). They ran a vicious defamation campaign in 1991 against a nominee they could not block. Nearly half the Democratic caucus objected to a Republican nominee in 2005 and all but an odd minority did to another nominee in 2006. On the other hand, street-level Democrats were enraged when the Republican Senate would not hold hearings on an Obama nominee in 2016. Merrick Garland was otherwise left alone. We now know he’s a viciously abusive character who deserves disbarment. At the elite level and at street-level, Democrats fancy the courts are their property, and are enraged when anyone thwarts them. It was not until 2009 you began to see pushback from Republicans.

I will agree with Feser insofar as the Bushes deserve credit too. They did put Alito and Thomas, the two real leaders with regards to Dobbs, on the Court. I was disappointed George W. Bush made no public statement on the overturning of Roe. At least not to my knowledge. He could have even taken a deserved bow on the issue.

Kavanaugh was no sure vote by any means. In fact, I was a bit surprised at his going along with the majority on that decision.

I think George W Bush was a much better president than he has been an ex-president. I think he’s been absolutely disgraceful as to the latter.