o-choice and anti-choice positions are directly antithetical to each other. The narrowness of latitude acceptance of WAPC and NMA toward the Supreme Court nominees that hold views opposite to theirs is indicated by the same pro-choice or anti-choice measure. Because, as it appears, the sole basis on which WAPC and NMA oppose Pryor and Caulfield, respectively, is each nominee's position on abortion, the latitude of rejection for each organization appears wide. Thus whatever other judicial views Pryor and Caulfield might hold are irrelevant to their suitability for the Supreme Court solely because of their position on abortion. And because WAPC and NMA attribute to Smith the views of each other's advocacy group, distortion in terms of the contrast effect appears to be in play. The familiar custom and practice of high-profile targeting and characterization of public officials reflects the ego involvement of WAPC and NMA, which are not persuaded that Smith's neutrality is genuine.
The perspective from which social judgment theory becomes relevant to the Supr
...