Roberts Nomination: Volokh Conspiracy has some interesting comments including citing a correction of early reports that he belongs to the Federalist Society.
Anyway, the Roberts nomination seems to mean we should plan on saying goodbye to thirty-two years of life under "Roe," which is not entirely a bad thing, even for pro-choice advocates. After all, Bush did terrific with unmarried women without college educations. It would be helpful, politically (and democratically) for them to learn just what it was they were voting for. There's a much longer argument to be made here, about how judicially-created and enforced liberalism has weakened its cause and alienated its potential supporters while not gaining terribly much in real world terms.
-- Eric Alterman, liberal columnist
Sigh. (1) Roe is already dead. Planned Parenthood v. Casey took away its strict scrutiny status, replacing it with a more lenient "undue burden" standard, opening up the path to more regulations that single out abortion. (2) Roberts' vote will not overturn Casey. (3) Kennedy and Roberts probably will not want to -- the new idea is allowing more regulations, forcing women to wait years to prove harm, but this still retains abortion rights as such. Your average abortion will still be protected, just those the most needing protection will be hurt.
(4) In the states actually winnable, abortion is generally protected by state constitutional law; the Democratic presidential candidates are not going to win big in Mississippii any time soon. If they do, it won' t be because of this. (5) The right to abortion has support of a majority of the population, even many pro-life sorts. (6) The "much longer argument" would have to be pretty darn good to show how Roe is the reason Democrats lost Congress in the 1990s and the presidency in the last two elections
(7) Requiring a judicial floor does not mean there is not a legislatively secured ceiling (8) The big "fu" Alterman is giving to women who will be deprived of a fundamental right to control their own bodies in those states (often lost causes anyway) that have anti-abortion laws in the wings leaves a bitter taste.
And, finally (9) Those who support true family friendly policies as well as rights of equality and privacy for us all do not just focus on the courts. This includes political races that have nothing to do with federal judgeships. And, I have seen such focus repeatedly over the Bush years. So, though some missteps were made, overall Alterman and others like him are so very wrong.
The complaints by New Republic types that Roe itself was patently bad law (though darn if constitutionally based liberty requires its result ... but apparently only if local majorities secure them -- so very "fundamental" huh?) rankles me. This stuff does too.