Arlen Specter’s defection to the Democratic Party in late April triggered another wave of teeth gnashing by liberal Republicans like Colin Powell and the mainstream media about the GOP’s political viability. The same press corps that cannot bestir themselves to cover the White House, sprang to life ready to dispense political advice to conservatives. Both the liberal Republicans and the establishment’s pundit class seemed to agree that social conservatives must be expelled from the big tent and then thrown under the bus.

Unfortunately, this strategy for GOP revival will not succeed. There are numerous reasons why, but one is less well recognized. That is, an absolutely non-negotiable plank of conservatism circa 2009 is the total rejection of judicial activism and policy-making from the bench. A direct consequence of this political development is that disengagement from the culture war is not possible because the Left has made the judiciary its handmaiden in forcing social change on America. A conservative judiciary will be very highly disposed to hand such policy decisions back to the people.

The Bush administration’s Harriet Miers debacle proved that stealth judicial candidates or lukewarm judicial activists will no longer pass muster with the GOP base. An outsider to conservatism might think I am exaggerating because calm was restored after Ms. Miers withdrew her nomination and Judge Samuel Alito was confirmed. Those points are true, but had Ms. Miers’ nomination been approved, the GOP risked blowing apart at the seams.

Concern over the judiciary is now central to conservative politics. Talk show hosts Laura Ingraham and Mark Levin have made judicial appointments one of their top concerns. In fact, Mr. Levin’s book denouncing judicial activism, Men in Black, was a best seller.  A “must- read” for conservatives is National Review Online’s Bench Memos blog which tracks judiciary-related news.

Another sign of this issue’s importance could be seen recently when the conservative Bradley Foundation awarded the Federalist Society’s founders lifetime achievement awards. The Federalist Society was created by a group of young, Reaganite lawyers in the 1980s for the express purpose of combating judicial activism and placing judicial conservatives on the federal bench.

Each branch of conservatism—social, economic, and national security—can list constitutional judicial decisions it abhors.  Social conservatives loathe various opinions on abortion, pornography, prayer, and same-sex marriage.  Economic conservatives and libertarians feel this way about the Kelo v. City of New London decision which eviscerated the constitutional protection against governments taking private property. They also fear the Second Amendment will be sabotaged. Moreover, national security conservatives have been stunned that the courts are now running our wars. Finally, all of them become apoplectic at the mere thought of foreign legal sources being used to trump the U.S. Constitution.

So, when Rudy Giuliani tells the GOP that he supports Roe v. Wade and equivocates on appointing judges who regard Roe v. Wade as illegitimate, he has shot himself in the foot twice. First, he has offended the pro-life community on the merits of the abortion issue. Second, and perhaps more importantly, he has offended those Republicans—including pro-lifers–who care deeply about judicial activism on a wide array of issues. They know that support for Roe v. Wade indicates that the speaker is not really serious about reigning in the judiciary because a politician could support legislative permission for abortion while rejecting the legal reasoning of Roe v. Wade.

Thus, the liberal Republican dream of abandoning social-cultural issues is not really feasible. Republicans have learned the hard way that being a judicial activist in one area is an excellent predictor that a judge will be an activist in all areas. One might think that opposing judicial activism on abortion should not necessarily predict whether a judge will overturn precedent regarding Guantanamo detainees, for example, but it has.

It is this realization that makes it unacceptable now for a Republican president to appoint judges outside the William Rehnquist and Mr. Alito philosophical lineage—even if it means that tremendous battles over social issues will erupt. Thus, surrendering to liberal judges on cultural issues would also mean abandoning the fight over the courts, constitutionalism and the rule of law. In short order, such a move would devastate the GOP’s electoral prospects.