A good analysis of why the next Republican to be elected President will likely continue shifting governmental policy to the right on abortion and birth control, regardless of whether they're pro-choice (Giuliani), pro-life (McCain), or whatever position happens to be convenient for the time being (Romney). An unwillingness to buck the party's base will probably extend to lower Federal court nominees as well, but the article is less convincing on the subject of the Supreme Court.

It is correct that when Republican Presidents have focused on ideology over competence, they've gotten what they wanted, as the Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas selections indicate. But unlike other judicial nominations, the Supreme Court focuses a great deal more public attention, and the political temptation to court a faction outside the party's base is usually too important to resist. The five previous Republican Presidents each nominated justices who were either liberal (Brennan, Stevens, and Blackmun) or right-centrist (Stewart, O'Connor, Powell, Souter and Kennedy), each of whom played a role in enacting, or reaffirming, Roe v. Wade, and even the current occupant was more than willing to nominate a less-than-ideological pick (Harriet Miers) the last time out. Six of the nine judges who ruled on Roe were GOP appointees, four of them by Nixon, and seven of the nine replacements for those justices were nominated by Republican, anti-abortion Presidents. And yet, Roe still stands, thirty-four years later, sturdy as an oak, and unlikely to be overturned by the Supreme Court anytime soon, regardless of whom President Giuliani or McCain nominate. [link via Tapped]