i think that I have heard that really Roe V Wade is not really that sound of a law and that it alone doesnt hold much clout. In fact some pro choice people arent really that worried if it would ever get overturned because they feel that there might be a better way to go about getting what they want in a more substantial piece of legislation. Plus, are you all saying that we cant have anyone in out court systems that does not believe in abortion? THAT seems a little radical to me personally. Its almost like lberals are practicing reverse discrimination towards people who dont agree with the secularists point of view.

I believe that a court appointee's belief has nothing to do with upholding a decision that has withstood over 3 decades challenge. There has been a precedent established, and it is paramount that we have no appointee who would ignore that precedent because of their personal beliefs. Who have a personal agenda they may take with them to their court position.
We are talking about a single individual who can impact the lives of millions of women. The government by law must uphold secularist positions. The constitution makes that obvious. Any religious views on this. or other issues, must be seperate from governmental consideration. The considerations of the constituancy supercede any religious contentions presented by any organised religion. That is the law of the land, as I see it, as we all should see it. Liberals are not practicing reverse discrimination, just trying to uphold the constitution, as it was framed. Our framers of the constitution were condsidered left wing liberals, for their time. {Read your history, folks} For the right-wing to embrace them as heroes of their agenda, is ironic at best.