I have a question

[Patsy Stone]

If John Roberts said Roe is "beyond settled law", and say Alito, even though he won't answer, is found to be vehemently pro-life, won't the SCOTUS still be split as it is now, 5-4? Wouldn't Alito replace Rehnquist and Roberts replace O'Connor in these positions?

I'm only talking about this one issue, not any of the others in which he could be the "crushing hand of fate".

[SmokingJacket]

1. That was my understanding.

Of course, John Paul Stevens is very old, and Ginsburg has been ill (though she seems fine now)... and I bet at least one more justice will die/leave before 2008. Every seat is important.

[davidwparker]

2. It would seem and be interesting to see. Roe is a good card for the

Repugs to play at election time to get out the "morality" voters. If Roe is overturned, then the repugs cut their own throats at election time. The holier than thou voters go back to voting for their own interests more easily.

[ginnyinWI]

3. Yes

They mentioned this on CBS News tonight. Still 5 pro-choice votes.

Anyway, the repubs would NEVER want to outlaw Roe. But here's the problem: they might pass a bunch of laws that will weaken it--that's the real danger, as I see it.

[FreedomAngel82]

4. And they also

won't have anything else to run on. I know lots of people, even Christians, who are for "civil unions" for gay people and with talking to about it (show how it has to do with the law and not religion like they're trying to make it) they could be open to gay marriage.

[Patsy Stone]

5. Oh there are plenty of other dangers to be sure.

But this 5-4 split occured to me yesterday when they started mentioning Roberts' testimony.

Of course they wouldn't want to overturn it, and I did enjoy, in a macabre way, how Brownback and Coburn tried to make it seem like he would absolutely vote pro-life (and you know, I'm not entirely convinced he would, but he sure as hell might) to pander to the wingers.