All of these terms that we throw around -- "settled law," "litmus test," "legislating from the bench," "strict construction," "original intent," etc. -- mean different things to different people. Most of the people in this debate tend to think in terms of issues, and frame their arguments around those issues; then many will marshal arguments that support their positions on those issues, without necessarily referring to them directly.

Take "settled law," for example. Sure, Roe v. Wade is "settled law," but so was the Dred Scott decision in its time, or Plessey v. Ferguson, or various other decisions that were questioned and/or overturned later. One might be in favor of giving due deference to settled law on the abortion question, but decidedly less so on other decisions. The reality, of course, is that it was the Supreme Court that "settled" those laws, and it is the Supreme Court that is empowered to change them. Anti-abortion rights advocates should not be to discouraged when they hear that Justice Roberts believes Roe v. Wade is settled law, just as abortion rights advocates should not take too much comfort in it.

"Liberal" and "conservative" are subject to intepretation, too. These are all labels of convenience, to be employed when they support your position, and left alone in favor of others when they don't.