"I'm sorry, but this idea seems, to me, at least, to be be rather... different... No offense intended, but I'd really like to see for myself where they said such a thing before I believe it--especially since if it's the case, than it would be an issue that crosses political lines, seeing as Scalia and Ginsburg are at basically opposite ends of the political spectrum."

I was as surprised as you when Ginsberg agreed with Scalia on this, but don't fall into the trap that our society has and assume that that when you're a liberal you must be anti-religion. Apparently, Ginsberg is a highly religious woman herself.

"I think if you're looking for judges to be unbiased, you've lost the battle already (and in the state of Colorado, you've lost it to a sickening degree). Theoretically, however--in their off-time, it shouldn't matter if they're sacrificing goats to Rush Limbaugh; it's the decisions they make on the bench that are important, and, after all, what they've been hired for. If, for example, a conservative judge were basing a judgement out of the Bible in opposition to the Constitution, then there would--and should!--be a huge public outcry. But so far the virtual atrocities committed by judges on the legal system have been on the left side of the aisle. (and with no such outcry, but I've already made my feelings on the media obvious...) But to assume that a judge who uses a phrase conservatives use ( To me, the fact that respecting life marks them as a conservative is more telling, anyway.) is therefore going to make biased judgements from the bench is a bit of a stretch."

My point is that overturning Woe V Wade would be a political message morseo than something based on law because, as I see it, when a judge on the Supreme Court starts sounding like a politican in Washington, as in, saying that the "culture of life must be protected" instead of saying, "The Constitution must be upheld", that's where the problem is. It's too much of a coincidence for a Justice to be repeating catchphrases out of Washington for it to not go unchecked, and that goes either way. If another Justice started saying that they were going to rule against a Republican idea and then gave their reason for it as some Democratic catchphrase, I'd expect and express equal outrage.

Yet, the Justices have thus far done a good job in remaining out of the political spectrum in recent memory as they rightly declined to rule in the Schiavo case and have not backed the Republican outcry about stopping the Democrat's filibusters. We shall see what happens here.

Take care all.