John--

As you should know, abortion is not the only issue likely to come before the court on which John Roberts appears likely to take a position unfavorable to the liberal view. Property rights, especially the takings clause, as it relates to endangered species, the church-state issue, regarding the 10 Commandments, creches in town squares etc. and his pro-business stance in general and background are other reasons. Liberals had plenty of legitimate reasons to oppose his appointment, if little chance from the start of any success in this.

Furthermore, as many posters have already said, the goal in Roe is only to prevent those who consider themselves the moral arbiters on the subject from preventing women from making their own choice on abortion. It's not as if they're eager to do it--it just should not be removed as an option if a woman feels it's necessary.

I just hope that if Bush comes up with another Court choice who is also assured by Bush minions to be against Roe-- (as in the recruiting of James Dobson to the would-be Miers bandwagon),-- reasonable Republicans (Spector possibly) will throw it back in Bush's face. If neither side knows how a candidate will vote on Roe, that's all that can be expected of a Bush appointee. It's definitely not acceptable for the religious Right to demand that a candidate kowtow to their position, and I think there are a lot of Republicans who realize this.