The assumption that Alito can overturn Roe overlooks rest of Court...

[kentuck]

We could assume that Thomas and Scalia may go along with him but it is not set in stone that any other Justice would go along with the extreme right agenda. The Democrats need to either shit or get off the pot. If they aren't going to filibuster, there is nothing else they can do. They certainly cannot beat the Repubs at the PR game.

[bowens43]

1. IMO Roe Vs Wade is a smoke screen.....

Far more important and almost completely overlooked is the 'liberal' interpretation of the commerce clause.If that interpretation is narrowed, most environmental laws and most labor laws may become 'unconstitutional'. I think that is the ultimate goal of the neo-cons.

[kentuck]

2. You are probably correct on that point...

Further corporate (fascist) control by the pigs in power..

[necso]

3. I don't "know" that

this guy would be the deciding vote on RvW (or assume it). Who can know, or do more than make a judgement call or guess? Certainly, however, it's a step in the wrong direction, from O'Connor to him -- on multiple issues.

My best guess is that this would make it 4-4 with one unknown (I just don't know about that person) -- and with a lot of pressure on that person to vote to overturn (if only because of the math). But you can read it various ways, and perhaps only restrictions on abortion are what will occur. Indeed, perhaps nothing at all will (here), but this is definitively a loss of ground, not a gain. Of course, this is (and was) to be expected.

And I'm more concerned about the broader issues: executive power, privacy, anonymity, civil liberties, etc.

But if the band of 14 holds, the rest of the Dems are completely powerless anyway.

At the very least, however, all Dems should vote against this guy in order to cover their asses, just in case the worst occurs. (This vote is more likely to be held against Dems than pugs, I think.) There are plenty of grounds to do so, including those that would appeal to voters ranging from "civil libertarians" to "liberals".

And assuming that "oh, they'll never overturn RvW", as a means of avoiding making tough decisions, may prove disastrous for the Party -- if this turns out to be another false hope.

I learned long ago never to trust a neocon... and I never do or will again.

If twas me, shortly before the vote, I'd get the best possible polling numbers to see what this guy's support looks like (etc -- to reassure any waverers, hopefully) and then make the call.

Whatever that call is, I will support it, because the Democrats are the only vehicle that I can see that can (practically) be used to roll back the neocon toxic-tide.

[kentuck]

4. You are right...

it would be a step in the wrong direction...

[necso]

6. And oh,

I'd seek both nation-wide and critical-state polling numbers. -- Good numbers based on solid methodologies (or maybe use several different ones and weight an overall result), solid mathematical analysis, and large sample sizes.

Huge decision here.

And there are more to come.

[leftofthedial]

5. there is exactly ZERO chance that Roe will be overturned

by the current generation of politicians

it is the ubiquitous straw man, the whipping boy the repukes use to allow assholes like Scalito to not have to answer questions and to fire up their religiously insane base. The repukes have no intention of overturning Roe.

that is a smokescreen used to distract us while they convert the SCOTUS to the legal wing of the corporatist movement.

[Walt Starr]

7. Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, Alito, and...

Kennedy who has consistently been opposed.

damn, that's five of nine.

[Neecy]

8. the only unknown...

Is Roberts, and it's only because he's yet to vote on an abortion case. If I'm not mistaken, Kennedy has already voted anti-choice on several issues that have come before the court.

So, if we're betting on Roberts being the holdout, um, we're in trouble.