<------- not a constitutional scholar, but isn't the gripe of some folks, who otherwiswe want abortion legal, that Roe v. Wade is based on a Right to Privacy?

People get in a huff about their being no Constituitional Right to Privacy. It's a non-issue in CA since there is a Right to Privacy here specifically enumerated in the STATE Constitution. One day, California will be its own country, and we will take all of our privacy and good weed with us.

I fully expect the next nominee to be a straight-up Conservative.

This is gonna be the Democrat's Moment Of Truth...if they wanna define themselves going into 2006, this is their chance. If Bush tries to push someone way to the Right down their throats, they need to make it a bloodbath.

Very possible that the whole Miers nomination was a set-up. I thought that the idea might have been to allow the dems to block her in confirmation. Then, after this phyrric victory, and having 'blown their wad,' Bush would nominate someone the conservatives could really get behind, and they would push through.

yeah, but federal law always trumps state law if there's a direct conflict that's addressed by the court.

being no scholar myself but, having taken a public health law class on constitutional and common law last semester, i'll say this: roe v. wade and a couple other cases that led up to it in the 60's (skinner, griswold, etc) placed reproductive rights firmly under the 14th ammendment. however, here's where it get tricky, according to the opinion written for roe the further into pregnancy you go the more the life of the fetus takes precedence over maternal health and the state can technically step in--somewhere around 24 weeks.

what's more interesting is in '92 there was the casey case that totally screwed with the standard of review and made no mention of "fundamental rights" (it basically uses an "undue burden test" says that you strike down a law that has too much uncontitutionality--kind of a vague notion). basically there's two standards of review floating around now, one strict that makes it harder to limit a person's 14th ammedment rights and a more nebulous one that gives the court more leeway. the rub will be if the supremes decide take another reproductive privacy/rights case. there's the chance they'll follow roe's lead (which is pretty much settled law) or take a different tack by using the standard set by casey which hasn't been used by courts since '92.

i don't think abortion rights will really be overturned, but it's not impossible to think that it could happen. the judges don't want an abortion black market anymore than us, but to say that it's impossible to make it harder or illegal isn't totally correct.

sorry didn't mean to kill this one. . .

Bork.