This sobering look at the age versus the known political inclination of each respective judge may well be reason number one that we must all work together to defeat McCain. Your list is fact, not hyberbole. It cannot be construed by even the most zealous HRC supporter as anti-Hillary. Perhaps your post should be converted to a mass email to be sent to Clinton's donor list?

Don't count on women voting for Obama. I'd bet my horse farm in KY that they won't..no matter how much you try to scare them.

I'll get back to you on that later sweetie.

Why not appeal to men?

Because of self-centeredness. Because of, in a word, arrogance.

It's okay for women to discount, insult, and exclude men. It isn't okay for men to discount, insult, and exclude women. No "male-only" anything can legally exclude women. But "women-only" bastions can legally exclude men.

Those things women call -- when it is expressed by men -- "sexism" are, without the fancy word, bigotry. The same views expressed by women about men, however, are not remarked upon, let alone identified for what they are: sexist bigotry.

"Men are more intelligent than women" = sexism.

"Women are more intelligent than men" = fact.

Why haven't we seen Oprah on the campaign trail since Feb 5?

It's not like women are one-dimensional and only care about the Supreme Court,please....

Those who argue for "experience" over "change", Gov Richardson, one of the Democratic candidates could genuinely claim of having the most "experience". We need to face up to the fact of Identity politics and move forward from there. I also question the true nature of some of these voters calling themselves a "Democrat", yet seriously considering to vote for McCain if Obama wins the Democratic nomination. Maybe what is really being revealed is someone's closet prejudice and bigotry, knowing that it's not a socially acceptable way of thinking in the public arena but can otherwise express them more freely in the privacy and anonymity of the internet. The irony to all this is those who accuse Obama supports of being the "real racists" (a la Rev Wright) but yet openly and not-so covertly, continue disseminating false information to incite and validate their racial overtures.

Just to amplify, it's not just about Roe v. Wade anymore. It's about Griswold v. Connecticut, the 1965 case that first articulated the right of privacy upon which Roe is based.

In Griswold, the Supreme Court held that the rights enumerated by the Bill of Rights are not to be read, and applied, separately, but, instead were intended to mark out the boudaries of a "zone of privacy" around the citizen's private affairs into which the government could not intrude. In Roe, the Court ruled that this meant the state could not forbid women from having abortions. In Griswold, however, the Court ruled that states could not ban contraception.

That's right. In 1965, contraception was illegal in a number of states, including Connecticut.

There are a number of anti-abortion groups, groups that are considered to be in the "mainstream" of the movement (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean) who make no bones about the fact that their ultimate goal is to have Griswold overturned and get contraception restricted or banned in as many states as possible.

Sound crazy? Come down here to the Bible belt and listen to what's being preached in 10 gazillion Southern Baptist Churches every Sunday. Consider, too, that we have five devout Catholics on the Court now. Consider further that there are states all over the country that would ban morning-after pills in a heartbeat and several where rural Republican dominated legislators would make a go of banning all contraception, or the use of contraception by unmarried persons, in the belief that fear of getting knocked up will keep kids from having sex.

Besides Roe, the ruling in Griswold was the basis for Lawrence v. Kansas, the decision that said the state cannot forbid or regulate sexual conduct by and between consenting adults.

The Court has four guys on it now who want to shrink freedom back to pre-Revolutionary standards, empower the President to do whatever the hell he pleases whenever the hell he pleases, restrict the ability of the government to regulate economic activity like, say, spewing CO2 into the atmosphere and, oh yes, allow the government to regulate and restrict our sexual conduct. The two oldest memebers of the Court are its most liberal. They've been clinging on hard for years, waiting for for a Democratic President and a Democratic Congrss.

That's what's at stake.

But, hey Maggi, your wounded gender-based feelings that Hillary wasn't nominated, and your fears about Obama being a scary black man who associated with even scarier black men (yes, we can see your other posts) is far more important than all of that.

Apparently many people who posted replies made the assumption that women who are worried about the future of the Supreme Court are only concerned about the Court's effect on women's issues. Fair enough, I suppose, at least in terms of the title.
However -- and I assume Ms. Weil would agree -- many of us who are women are concerned about a conservative Court, period end. Whether the issue before the Court is arbitrarily deciding the outcome of a presidential election, or opening the floodgates on invasion of privacy, or the most recent ruling on voter registration limitations, we all -- male and female -- have plenty to worry about. Isn't that the real point?

Stop talking about McCain with them and ask them what they want if their candidate doesn't get the nomination.

This shows exactly why Obama should agree to nominate Hillary to the Supreme Court at the first possible opportunity. Not only would wingnuts across the nation be thrown into a state of apoplexy (more than usual) for years and years, Scalia and Thomas (at least) would probably be driven to constant hysteria at having Hillary on the court.

Obama could then nominate Bill for the second SC position that opens up. I'd have to get cable again just to watch all the heads exploding on Fox News.

wwstaebler

I am VERY concerned about the court for many reasons - you are correct

I am concerned about business regulations (or lack there of), I am concerned about civil right or infringement of), I am concerned about the unbelievably arrogant Antonin Scalia as the strongest voice on the court - with a weak Chief Justice - and having a Scalia majority determine this country's judicial course

I worry for my children - and everyone else's children as well

But the main point of the post - was for the uber Hillary supporters to stop saying they are going to vote for McCain -- If they are true Hillary supporters and respect her record on women's rights and women's issues, then there is no issue more pressing than the potential imminent overturnning of Roe V Wade (or Griswald or whatever anyone wants to refer to)

If women care about women's issues they can be disappointed this will not be the year for a woman president BUT that should not change their point of view on the issues

And Barack Obama is the nest choice for that
alison

the next best choice = NEST

like Truthiness--