"Roe, Roe, Roe your boat, gently down the..."

President Bush nominated John Roberts to the Supreme Court (see NYTimes article here. All day Tuesday, everybody thought it was going to be... uh, some gal from Louisiana named Edith (I can't find her name anywhere online; talk about disappearing from the radar!). By the end of the day, Bush decided otherwise. His positions in past litigation have been unfavorable toward Roe v Wade, and yet he has been quoted as saying: "Roe v Wade is the settled law of the land... There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent." Well, in a sense, there's no contradiction. It is the law of the land as of now. And who's to say what would happen in "applying that precedent"? Certainly nothing to indicate that Roe would remain standing. Remember, we're looking at a guy who's obliged to join the High Court without preconceived notions, and the conviction that the Constitution is NOT a so-called "living document," but one with specific intentions on the part of the Founding Fathers. Those intentions did not include a so-called "right to privacy" as such (and you will find those words nowhere in the Constitution). Besides, even outgoing Justice O'Connor has conceded that Roe is bad law. So it's only a matter of time before a case appears before them, and Roe gets overturned -- not because Roberts or anyone else wants it that way, but because of the recognition that we are a nation of laws, as opposed to personal judicial whim. (That'll be the day, huh?)

Whatever the effect on Roe v Wade, this much is beyond dispute; if appointed, Roberts will be the first member of the High Court to actually be younger than... moi!!!