I was pleasantly surprised to see Bush offered up someone with some apparent talent and brains (talent beyond denial and attacking). I think the Dems have to remember Bush holds the White House, and he gets his choice as long as the person seems qualified (C.V. + experience) and seems able to make sense out of the concept of progressive (not the political movement) interpretation versus wholesale activism (a position Clarence Thomas embraces - i.e. that we should completely disregard previous finding - a position which Scalia rightly called him "nutty" for holding). True judicial activism would be that which believes prior law is irrelevant.

Roberts appears to be someone who will make reasoned decisions, rather than simply toe the party line (like Thomas). He's way more friendly to business than I'd prefer, but I don't get to pick, and there is no reason to hold up his nomination. The reality is, even if he'll vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, the Repulicans have held the Presidency for 17 of the past 25 years, and 20 of the 32 years since Roe, and they get their way. Whether the country will abide revocation of privacy law is another matter, I suspect most folks will find the abolishing of contraception in most forms an anethma, and it will cause a massive backlash if it were to come to pass, but if the Reps want to run down that road, they have the right to do so.

For Robert's sake, he seems unlikely to whole-cloth overturn Roe, and much less likely to overturn Rosenberg (contraception case in 65), so the probability of such backlash is realy nil, despite what the psuedo-Christian zealots may wish for. The real area the Dems will dislike is his probable stance on things like EPA, workers rights (FLMA :)), etc.. but hey, you put Enron's best bud in the White House, the guy who denies global warming exists, and you gets what you pay for.

BTW, before all you folks make too many assumptions, I'm a long way from being mainstream liberal, but I'm also a long way from mainstream conservativism. I guess it's that 80% in the middle I'm a part of. I don't think Robert's is someone I'd choose, but he's well qualified, and deserves confirmation, even if Roe V. Wade is in jeapordy (which I don't think it is).

PB - P.S. Mitch, put on your badge or I'm telling Mom

PB, I certainly don't agree with Thomas in every decision, but he doesn't embrace blindly ignoring precedent. His belief is simply that if the Court has wrongly interpreted the Constitution in the past, it should not be afraid to reverse course. That's not to say that it should be done cavalierly. But remember, Brown overruled Plessy. I think the Court in that case quite rightly believed that the Plessy Court was wrong, and that Justice Harlan's outstanding dissent was correct.

Also, PB, who's going to outlaw contraception? Even if Griswold were to be overturned (and that seems highly unlikely), it would become a state issue, just like abortion would be if Roe was overruled. Too many people fail to acknowledge the simple fact that the debate about the constitutional issues surrounding abortion are simply a subset of general discussions on federalism.

The federal reversal of the right to privacy would open up the right to revoke legalization of contraception. As I said it's highly unlikely, but given that you have right wing nut jobs denying basic contraception in pharmacies, I don't think the idea is so far from the minds of some of the more extreme elements. If you had said in 1975 that the fairness doctrine would be abolished and that the result would be a landscape dominated by nearly factless talk radio morons, most folks would have said "sure bud, keep hitting the bong." It's not even remotely likely that such an event would occur, but until Ginsberg, contracption WAS in fact illegal in most states, so clearly the mood CAN exist, and DID exist 40+ years ago. The point is that your reaction is exactly the kind of thing that would maybe, perhaps wake up folks that the very right end, just like the very left end, really has almost nothing in common with common folks, but unfortunately the common folks don't start caring until things they hold as basic freedoms (for example the freedom to date and GASP even have sex outside of marriage) - it's not a constitutionally gauranteed right- but it's a non-constrained freedom, and it's one which people who claim to know better about morality would prefer we revoke the entire 20th century, except of course for them.

I don't think Ginsberg would even get revisited, but when Tom Delay talks about the falacy of the right to privacy, he's saying that to pander to his constituancy that sees contraception as an evil (including fundamentalist Catholics), so don't kid yourself that at least some people wouldn't like to do so, no matter what you may like or not.

PB

"If you had said in 1975 that the fairness doctrine would be abolished and that the result would be a landscape dominated by nearly factless talk radio morons, most folks would have said "sure bud, keep hitting the bong."

And if you say today that talk radio before the end of the fairness doctrine was different in any way other than politics, I'd think you took them up on most folks' offer.

Factless? Oy.

As to revocations of Ginsburg - I guess it's time for people to organize a large lobbying organization that aims to ensure reproductive rights through the legislative and judicial processes, and put their time and money where their mouths are.

Oh, wait.

Some might argue that the country is worse off for the revocation of the "fairness" doctrine, given that much (though by no means all) of talk radio is drivel that panders to one side or the other, mostly the right. But the fact is, we now have more freedom of speech.

Sticking to some of the basics of this country's principles (e.g. free speech and federalism) doesn't always mean that we will get the best results. At least, not everyone will agree about whether we get the best results. But that's not necessarily the point of these principles.

In what states was contraception illegal 40+ yrs ago?