kat/katlaughing -- thing is, there really isn't a lot of hard data there. The list of presidents and the number of justices they appointed, yes, that's "hard data" in the sense that it's factual. But the relevance of those facts to Roe v. Wade is arguable, to say the least. Even if you accept that 2.62, or 2.8, or 2.5 Supreme court appointments per president is meaningful data, the rest of the argument is conjecture, based on speculation about who will retire, who will be appointed, the future balance in the Senate, etc. That there will be new appointments to the court in the next eight years is a safe bet; that these will be "anti-choice" appointments who will overturn Roe is something of a stretch. Bush not only has to be elected, he has to be re-elected, and with polls showing %70 support for Roe, I don't think he's going to play the "pro-life" card for real. McCain campaigned as "pro-life", look where it got him, and that was the Republican primary.

Roe was written by a Nixon appointee, and has survived Carter, Reagan, Reagan again, Bush, and nearly three decades of "pro-life" posturing in Congress. I don't think it's going away.

For a pithier, funnier, and more cogent take on this, check out Michael Moore's column "Ain't Falling For That One Again" at www.grassroots.com

I can't stretch my imagination far enough to see Nader winning. But I can see a Green party strengthened from the turnout that would result from everyone whose conscience says vote Ralph, voting Ralph.