If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.

There will be a case on the use of a hallucinogenic drug for religious purposes. It will have a predictable outcome, based on last year's ruling for denying prisoners religious expression. Score one for people in Washington D.C. deciding what you can and cannot put in your own body.

There will also be a case on doctor-assisted suicide (a challenge to the Oregon law that permits people to end their own lives). This is a states-rights issue, and the Federal Courts should not intervene. But since there seems to be little viable push to a smaller federal government these days, I fear this will score another one for people in Washington D.C. deciding what you can and cannot put in your own body.

By the end of November, the Court will hear two cases regarding abortion rights. One case challenges a parental notification law regarding girls under 18, which is being called unconstitutional if it does not include a health exemption. That health exemption is the tricky phrase these days, especially with regard to this move:

Bush administration lawyers asked the Supreme Court on Monday to reinstate the first federal law banning a late-term abortion procedure, arguing that what critics call a “partial-birth” abortion is gruesome and “never medically indicated” as a safer surgical procedure.

So where does John Roberts stand on the Only Issue That Really Seems To Matter? Well, much has been made about the possible reversal of Roe v Wade (which, I am told, would bring about the end of civilization or at least a revoking of Women's Suffrage and eternal consignment to the kitchen), but the abortion issues at hand this session are actually more significant than Roe v Wade's future (discussed here previously).

Is the Roberts confirmation the end of the Balanced Court? Are Bush and his conservative fellows about to take away all of your personal rights? Is it time to really fight over the replacement for Sandra Day O'Connor?

No. The Court will still be balanced - just in a different place, as always happens. Democrats are playing this balancing act very smartly (see here), and Republicans are not, or they would be emphasizing history.

And as for when to fight over the replacement for Justice O'Connor, the Left have been losing that battle for years. There is no chance that Democrats would seek to maintain last year's SCOTUS balance if they controlled both houses of Congress and the Presidency. And lefties need to recognize the fact that while conservatives own these two branches of the US government, they by default own the rudder to the third. If you want to control SCOTUS, you have to control the Senate and the Oval Office.
Gloria Felt at Women's e-News recogizes this, though she isn't happy. This article should be taped on the wall of every American who fears the big-government compassionate progressive agenda G.O.P.

The idea of a Roberts Court--likely to be tilted yet further to the right by whomever President Bush nominates to succeed Justice Sandra Day O'Connor--must serve as a cautionary civics lesson.

It matters who wins elections. It matters who controls the power to appoint judges. It matters who advises and consents to appointments. These are simply facts of political life...

Let's face it; in Washington, Lyndon Johnson's rule of engagement still applies even if it's applied more covertly and to a gender-inclusive Congress today: "When you've got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow."

I see Ms. Feldt's agenda as extreme, but her reasoning here is dead on. If you are for the progressive wing of the Republican party, you must love what is going on. The rest of us should be very concerned every time any president, from either party, appoints a Justice to the Supreme Court.