I share your dismay over the right wing slant to the Supremes, but I would not panic just yet. On the economic side of things, the cycle can only go so far in favor of the fat-cat corporations before something breaks down. Big business needs a middle class to buy all the crap they are trying to sell. Poor people with minumum wage jobs and no benefits are not going to be able to buy enough cars, boats and time share units to keep the economy going. Big banks need a middle class to pay their minimum credit card payments every month, not to mention the 24% interest and $50.00 late fees. On the social side, the Republicans give lip service to conservative Christian principles, but corporate America (who really controls the Republicans) doesn't want the religious right to take over our country any more than you or I do. Even if they did, it is too late to turn back the clock. Globalization, for all of its problems, is causing a tidal wave of progressive ideas to wash over every part of the world and nobody, including Bush and his buddies, can stop it. Spain even approved gay marriage for God sake!

So I say sit back and enjoy the show for a while and continue to vote for people with vision and actual ideas instead of trying to find a "winner" who may or may not represent your ideals and values.

I am under the impression that liberals and progressives believe the Constitution is a living document, subject to the interpretation of the courts. Since the Democrats have lost the Senate, House, and Administration, the last bastion of progressive views are liberal courts. NOW your out of luck. Your failed views will have to be judged by those that believe what is written in the constitution, not what is the popular politcally correct opinion. An example of what is wrong with liberal interpretation is basing an judegment upon foreign laws.

Rest assured-you will survive Bush's Court, states rights will flourish, and Oregon retains the right fo choice both in life and death.

If Alito is your worst-case scenario, I wonder what you think about 911?

When John Kerry lost in 2004 my very first thought was I have to do all that I can to save the Supreme Court. I have been dreading this moment since then and now it is here. In a way I am excited because I now have job security for the next thirty years simply because every issue that I truly care about, Equality, environment, workers’ rights, women’s’ rights, and true social and cultural progress is now seriously threatened and will be under attack until we not only change the laws but until we change America’s collective conscious, Americas culture. Growing up in New York I thought that The 60’s and 70’s and yes 80’s had done that (how wrong was I). I remember numerous TV ads asking people to recycle, to save water, to not waste energy, to be accepting of minorities and, dare I say it, homosexual people. I remember only two kids in my class actually being religious in any quantifiable way and creationism and its evil child intelligent design where amusing antidotes about the small percentage of Americans who can’t deal with reality or had parents whom where crazy. I remember thinking that a woman’s right to choose was simply and assumed fact of life and the Anti-Choice movement was the waning remnants of people lost in the past unable to accept progress and sadly delusional. Point being I thought my fight was going to be for the environment and international awareness I never thought I was going to have to fight the social and cultural battles that are now bearing down upon us. Regardless of that fact I am glad that I am here to fight these battles, I am glad that all of you are here to fight these battles, I just wish that some of you where much richer. Despite this being an awful day for cultural and social progress I cannot be overly saddened, as throughout the history of the world every step backwards has been matched by two steps forwards. So what I hold dear to my heart is that despite the seeming momentary triumph of the right it is sure to be relatively fleeting and matched and by two fold advancement in the consciousness of this country. In my minds eye I look forward to wiping the self righteous and congratulatory smiles of the faces of every delusional bastard who thinks this is a grand day. I look forward to defeating their every insipid hope and dream. But mostly I look forward to their moment when they finally realize the damage that they have just wrought to this country and their demented golden vision of this country comes toppling down upon their heads like the Tower of Babel. With George Bush doing his best to represent the finest ideals of the Republican Party this fate seems most assured. All that is left to guarantee the Tower topples is for good people to stand up and be accounted for and that is why I am glad that you are all here to fight this battle. So there is that.

Oh, Big Box Mart, what have you done to me? We used to be your customers, now we're your em-ploy-eeeees. - JibJab

I can't say what the newly conservative court is going to do. I would love to believe that Scalia and Thomas will continue to convince the freshmen that the Constitution does not exist to serve corporations, nor does it exist to serve the President. I would hope that the four lefties and one swinger will continue to side for progressive ideals like equal treatment under the law. That's what I'd hope.

But let's say Roe is overturned.... so what? Now, I'm as pro-choice as they come. In fact, I have a bumper sticker that says, "I'm pro-choice on everything." You heard it here first - THE SUPREME COURT CANNOT OUTLAW ABORTION. They can't do it. Even if they wanted to.

If Roe is overturned, the states get to decide. I'm thrilled with that. I think the states should decide MOST of the things currently decided by the Federal Uberment. Like speed limits, sin laws, drinking ages, toilet tank sizes, and the like. Congress has no authority under the Constitution to regulate these things. Not under a realistic reading of the commerce clause or the general welfare clause. But we sheep have ceded that authority to them because of the Depression and haven't taken it back.

We complain about money in politics and how powerful the powerful have become, but it's because we have given away that power that the powerful can wield it. Republicans want the power to keep corporations donating and entrenched. Democrats want the power to keep dependent voting blocs in line for reelection. We want them to stop abusing the system. It won't happen until we stand up and demand the power back.

Activist wingnut court? Let's hold judgment on that. I believe we will see a relatively non-activist court in most arenas, deferring to the status quo on most every issue. That's sad, to me. I believe the Court ought to smack Congress around from time to time and instead, for instance, of saying, "Well, Ashcroft couldn't attack Death with Dignity because Congress hasn't authorized him to..." I would love to see them say, "Well, Ashcroft couldn't attack Death with Dignity because this is a State's Rights (read the 9th and 10th Amendments) issue and Congress has NO authority to aloow Ashcroft to attack Death with Dignity or any other host of issues the States have absolute control over.

That would be a great court. Could it happen? Maybe. Would our country be better off? Undoubtedly. Might Roe get overturned, leaving abortion rights to the states? Perhaps. Could Tennessee or some other buckle in the Bible Belt outlaw abortion? Perhaps. Would it be legal across the border in another state? Probably.

The upside is that if Roe gets overturned, it will signal a decrease in the power of the Federal Uberment, meaning that right-wing nutjobs like Ashcroft, Gonzales, Bush, Cheney, Lott, Frist, and any other of a host of people, will have less influence over your life, making it less important who controls the House and Senate and Presidency. I'd trade Roe for that any day.

Don Smith Candidate, Portland City Council

Well stated Don!!! If I lived in Portland your contribution would have sparked my interest in your candidacy!

Simply put...Roe v Wade has been bad law and quite frankly an anchor around the neck of the progressive movement. It's kind of like unions....it provided a great deal of good 30 years ago but now it's reached a point where the Democratic party in general and specifically the pro choice movement would gain more by it being overturned.

Abortion is on a long list of things best regulated at the state level and this more conservative court will indeed lean heavily towards states rights. The court can also be a risk to scale back some hard won victories, especially in the area of Affirmative Action....but that can be rectified in Congress if the court gets too carried away.

THE MAJOR ISSUE facing progressives isn't the Supreme Court...it's regaining control of Congress. Period.

Anybody else notice that 42 Senators voted against Alito--and only 58 for? That's not enough to stop a filibuster.

So, mathematically, that means that although there were enough Democrats who didn't want Alito on the bench, there were not enough willing to filibuster for it.

Its a shame. If there ever was a time to use the filibuster, it is when the majority of the Supreme Court is suddenly made up of right-wing Roman Catholics.

Second on the comment from Don Smith. Yep. What you're talking about is only more true in "Blue-Red" America. Damn, I wish I still lived in Portland (maybe tomorrow, maybe someday....)

What do we do? I don't know what we can do beyond bitching about any problems created by the change, talking about them endlessly till people know why they happened; as you're yelling - and giving to the advocacy groups of your choice - kick back and wait for the reaction. If it doesn't come, it's possible you're a bad fit for this country: consider relocating.

Caelan MacTavish" Please ask your mommy to change your diaper.

Kitty C-

Have you ever read an opinion by Scalia? He uses "foreign law" to justify his opinions far more than any of the other justices on the court. If that's what you think characterizes a liberal activist judge, try again (or was that just a line that was fed to you by Faux News?)

Anyone who thinks that personal constitutional rights should be handled at the state level is simply wrong, dead wrong, as in people will die for freedom and women will die for the freedom to control their own bodies no matter what the law says. To those of you who think that basic Civil and personal Rights should be in the hands of the state instead of absolutely guaranteed by the constitution you are so wrong as to be terrifying. Do I have to point out something called Jim Crowe. The right to choose if and when you have children should not be in the collective hands of a slight majority of your neighbors anymore than the right to drink at a certain public water fountain or the right to marry someone of a different race or the right to go to the same school as the white children should be in the hands of a slight majority of strangers. This country was setup under the belief that majority rule can be as destructive as a dictator and thus an essential aspect of our legal system is that the Basic civil and personal rights of everyone including a minority whether it be a racial, religious, or ideological minority are guaranteed and protected by the constitution from everyone including the president, congress and even democracy. If you don’t get this and if you don’t believe that the decision of if and when you have children falls under the basic protections of our constitution then personally I wonder what you have been smoking and why you feel the need to reinforce you ignorance publicly. And finally Roe vs. wade doesn’t have to be overturned for an abortion to be unavailable and inaccessible. But whatever every obstacle that a woman has to over come is an obstacle that pushes a woman towards making a deadly decision for control of her life and that is simply wrong wrong wrong wrong get it.

Caelan MacTavish,

That's cowardly Dems covering their asses. If confronted, they'll say they voted against Alito. Will voters remember that the filibuster vote was the important one?

sasha,

It's not Caelan's diaper that's full of poop, deary; it's you.

Amen Jesse.

Karol and Jesse....I was not in anyway proposing that women loose their right to choose to have or not have children. I merely said that Roe v Wade as written is bad law.

A long long list of constitutional lawyers agree with that statement.

Support for a woman's right to an obortion runs about 68% right now across the country. Higher in some states lower in others. That support does drop off dramatically (38%) when it comes to late term and partial birth abortions.

It's was recently estimated by the Washington Post that if abortion rights were handled at the state level, 44 states would have some level of abortion rights with 37 maintaining everything as it is today with possible restrictions on late term abortions and parental notification in 23 of those 37 states.

Nobody is going to have to go into the back alleys with coat hangers (a NARAL favorite theme) ever again.

I hate to say this, but charlie you have no idea what you are talking about. i have to work but i will say it again and again. Abortion doesn't have to be illegal to be inaccessable and unavailable. in 86% of counties in the US there is no abortion Provider the entire state of idaho has 1 abortion provider the entire state of missouri has 1 abortion provider. It has never been the intention of the right to over turn roe. it has been the intention of the right to slowly widdel away a womens ability to get an abortion so that while it is strickly speaking legal it is essential unaccessible impossible for most women in this country to have a choice. and what does some level of abortion rights mean that is like saying black people have some voter rights and parental notification laws suck and only punish kids who have crappy parents besides parental notification is simply a tool the right uses to try and get the law to recognize that the state has a legitmate and vested interest in preserving the life of a fetus thus bringing us one step closer to over turning roe or at least imposing very strict regualtions on the right to choose when it should be guaranteed. You just can;t see what is going on and that is what they are counting on. They aren't trying to win in giant leaps they are trying to win one babystep at a time hoping that we don't notice them even moving and then one day we wake up and they are standing in the endzone and we are still att he 50 yard line wondering who has the ball. i know that you don't want to be wrong but everything i have ever read or does says that you are. and ps roe might be bad law but that is why we need a good supreme court to reinterpert expand redifine it becasue its foundaiton is right and good. unfortunately we have a bad supreme court and they are simply going to destroy everything that was right bout Roe.

Charlie Burr - thanks - not for the vote of confidence while I appreciate it but for filling in the blanks for everyone out there about what is going on everyday and what will be going on if things go wrong. there aint nothing like the full court press.

sigh I've been a loyal hard core activist Democrat for 48 years.
I know the Karols, Jesses, and even some other Charlies wish it weren't so but folks there are need a lot of us old geezer Democrats who think a bit more mainstream on some issues than you do.....and you need our sorry azzes to win enough local and state elections in order to govern blue.

AND DAMN KAROL.....the 37 states are MORE than enough to pass a constitutional amendment to provide standard abortion rights in ALL states. Did ya fall asleep in school on how to amend the constitution?

and it's me that's being made out to be clueless....another sigh

The Christian Right has ONE rallying cry - Overturn Roe. One. That's it. Oh, yeah, and "Ban Harry Potter," but no one much pays attention to that.

I am not a woman. I cannot purport to understand the range of emotions someone faces who is newly and surprisingly pregnant. I do believe, though, that places like Idaho and Missouri do not benefit from Roe v. Wade. If there is truly only 1 abortion provider in those states and there is currently a constitutional right to choose, how is Roe helpful? A super-majority of Americans believes abortions should be SAFE, LEGAL, and UNCOMMON. That's the dilemma. I believe that the morning after pill or Plan B will be effective surrogates to many abortions.

I don't however (and this is where I lose the crowd) believe that abortions per se are a right, to be funded by taxpayers and encouraged by planning advocates. Abortion is a TOUGH personal issue. As Charlie from Gresham observes, we would gain more from Roe's disappearance than its continued existence.

Charlie Burr says he has worked with both "Jesse and Karol, and both are great examples of the next generation of activists that this threat is producing." Don't you realize that the Right views Roe as a rallying cry? That the next crop of right-wing nutjobs is being formed because of Roe?

I know many on this blog agree with the notion that we are creating more terrorists because we are occupying Iraq and we therefore should remove that motivation. Why doesn't that logic carry over to YOUR cause? I suggest it's because you view Roe the same way the neocons view Iraq - to lose it suggests that you, too, have lost. I say, get us out of Iraq and let's concede that Roe isn't good law. (Note - I did not say that Roe is a bad idea.)

Let's stop creating new right-wing terrorists.

Don Smith Candidate for Portland City Council

Oh, and before I get jumped, I am NOT against Roe. I'm just saying that if it IS overturned, the world does not end. And please don't take that and say that for some women it would end, and the like. I know. Women's lives are ending today with Roe. I stand with you. I am not against you on this. But you aren't going to change the court. Even if you win the Congress and the presidency, the court is set. Roe is not the be-all. As Charlie said, 37 states is enough for a Constitutional amendment.

Or for that matter, let's bring some heat down on the FDA for playing politics with medicine. You may need to go to three pharmacies to get the morning-after pill. I'm sorry but that's not suffering. The women who preceeded my generation suffered, and I have all the respect in the world for them. So what if a pharmacist is snooty? No law will change that. That judgmental, arrogant, smarmy moralizer will always be that way.

So what if not every pharmacy carries it? Not every pharmacy carries every medicine and you MUST recognize that abortion to some IS murder. You can't force someone to help you commit what they consider to be murder. Some pharmacies don't carry birth control for the same reason. That's their perogative.

If you can get a prescription, it can be ordered off the internet. Yes, it may take two days to get to you. Is that too long? I don't know. Maybe. I just don't know. If it's a concern, then educate women to buy it in advance. Like a reproductive-rights first-aid kit. There are ways.

But don't tell me I've thrown you under the bus because I have not. I stand with you. I stand for you.

I'm sorry. I got a little worked up over that.... </rant>

"You heard it here first - THE SUPREME COURT CANNOT OUTLAW ABORTION. They can't do it. Even if they wanted to."

That is not really true. You underestimate the intellectual capacity of Scalia. There has been a concerted effort to lay the groundwork for protecting the constitutional rights of fetuses. If the court, rather than overturning the privacy findings in Roe and Griswold, decides the fetus has the right to equal protection under the 14th amendment, abortion will have to be treated as a homicide. That is why the right has been proposing laws on fetal death that make killing the unborn a separate crime from killing the mother.

That doesn't mean there are five votes for that idea, but even those that claimed to believe that Roe was "settled" law could vote for it without changing their story.

That said, abortion is only one of many areas where the court may constrain the states. Despite past criticisms, Scalia and the other conservatives on this court has pay little deference to states rights. I think you may find the mildest federal regulation of business practices pre-empting local and state regulation of any kind. We may see local environmental, employee protections etc. thrown out. If the federal government remains firmly in the hands of Republicans, this bunch will continue to put more power in the hands of their political allies. The only real constraint will be the fear that they will lose control of that power.

-Kitty,

What were your grades in history class? C average? Did you ever cover the Enligtenment and the politics that influenced the creation of this nation of ours?

Sorry to get overly elitist, but gals like you are the primary reason why America is the laughing stock of the entire world. We are uneducated, money-hungry, selfish, arrogant idiots.

The Republican victories have come for two reasons: Repubilcian's successful use of fear and human selfishness AND, the inadequent courage of Democrats to act as a true opposition party.

The true defeat in Alito's victory today will not be Roe v. Wade, although this will undoubtably be overturned within a year... the true defeat will be the vast expansion of Presidential powers and the total alteration of the Democracy envisioned by our Founding Fathers. Conspiracy theorists might be able to trumpet their horns after '08 when Bush is STILL in office.

You know....it's just occurred to me. The progressive movement (I liked being labeled a liberals but Oh well) has reached a point where nobody seems to have any stomach for a hard, rigorous, passionate, movement across the country for a constitutional amendment. It would be a slam dunk for abortion rights AND if you exclude the word marriage (and stick with partner for now) gay rights would also fare pretty well.

I think the failed fight (which I spent 7 months involved with) for the Equal Rights Amendment a couple decades ago has turned us all into political wimps who would rather march, rant, and email politicians.

Am I wrong?

How about Purple Portlanders?

Charlie in Gresham, I agree with a lot of what you've said, but I wouldn't want to call any amendment to the U.S. Constitution a slam dunk. Amending the Constitution is a rigorous procedure, and with good reason. This is our governing document, and changing it should not be done lightly. If you've got a constitution written well enough (and I believe the U.S. Constitution is), you don't need or want to handle most issues through the amendment process.

Our society is changing by leaps and bounds, which will require us to address many issues -- do we really want to have a Constitution with dozens and dozens of amendments? I used to live in Louisiana, where that was the case, and it was a mess. They finally called a Constitutional Convention and rewrote the whole thing in 1974 ... and have still needed scads of amendments since then.

The usual amendment procedure requires both houses of the U. S. Congress to approve a bill calling for the amendment, by a two-thirds majority in each house. That's a major undertaking. Then the amendment goes to the states, and must be ratified by 75% of the 50 states (either state legislature or a special convention called in each state.)

I'm not saying it can't be done, especially if the electorate gets riled up enough, and especially once the younger generations come into their own. We may reach a point where a handful of amendments are needed to move us forward. I'd suggest those would have to do with confirming the right to privacy and guaranteeing that equal rights may not be abridged due to sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity.

To put it another way, "social engineering" can be done through legislation (either federal or state) and by the judiciary. The amendment process, however, doesn't easily lend itself to social engineering. It follows rather than leads. The momentum in a certain direction is already there, and the amendment is used to bring the Constitution "up to speed". That's why, in my opinion, we did not succeed with the ERA. It was before its time. Society needed to catch up, and we haven't quite gotten there yet.

BTW, I agree with t.a. There are likely going to be some pretty poor SCOTUS decisions over the next several years, which subsequently will be overturned in decisive fashion (I think and hope sooner than later.) This will not be seen as the Supreme Court's finest hour.

face it, no matter how much you agree with the principles behind Roe, if it were stronger it wouldn't be leaking like a judicial sieve about ready to give way right about now

I don't think the decision has anything to do with it. Roe is not in trouble because people don't think women should have control over their own medical care. Or that there is not an inherent right to privacy in the constitution. Pass a Chinese-style law limiting the number of children a family can have and Scalia would find original intent for the right to privacy self-evident.

Roe is in trouble because the Roman Catholic Church believes a fetus has a soul, abortion is murder and that government is responsible to god. Those beliefs are centuries old and international. They have nothing to do with United States Supreme Court decisions. The Catholic Church in the United States has spent millions of dollars opposing abortion since Roe. It has been a perfect tool for uniting the traditionally liberal social activists in the Catholic Church with the hidebound, doctrinaire traditionalists.

Because Catholics are a traditionally Democratic constitutiency, abortion has proven a very politically profitible cause for Republicans. At the same time it has provided a common issue that has allowed Robertson and Falwell to create a Republican movement in the traditionally apolitical evangelical churches. On the flip side, Democrats have tried, not very successfully, to use it as an issue for winning the votes of otherwise Republican women.

The struggle over abortion rights has nothing to do with the law. It is a political and social struggle. The legal arguments are just so much foofrah.

Karol:

I think we're talking past one another. I am not by any means dismissing you. I went so far as to say that I didn't know whether Plan B two days later was too late. I am trying to gently say that I don't know everything there is to know about the movement, but am merely suggesting that NARAL's fight is not lost if Roe is lost. I am trying to untie Roe from Pro-Choice success.

Pro-Choice has made great strides. Birth control is widely, though not universally, accepted. Plan B is not being treated like RU-486 was. There is progress to be made, for sure, but you've come a long way in 40 years, starting with Griswold.

As I see it, even with an amendment that said, "Women shall have the right to a free abortion on demand with no restrictions or notification requirements at all," you would still have protestors and impolite remarks and hostile doctors and the like. I believe that clinic bombers are terrorists. They should be treated as such. I believe that bible-thumpers who wear plastic fetuses around their neck as they scream at young women entering clinics are over-the-top jerks who have no right to judge (though they have the right to speak).

I think anyone who throws stuff at you as you enter a clinic should be liable for assault. But we can't stop them from speaking their mind, just as I wouldn't stop you from protesting in front of City Hall if someone were to sponsor an ordinance banning abortion in Portland.

As Ross said, it's a social and political struggle, and I am with you. I will not do anything to fetter your pro-choice rights in the City. Please, educate me, though, on areas that Portland is behind the ideal curve. I've always thought we were pretty darn far ahead of the curve in this regard. Are we not?