Digressive Speculations

off topic, but timely...

so, there's no way Bush is going to nominate anyone to the Supreme Court who has not privately assured the republicans that they will weaken and/or overturn Roe vs Wade
similarly, anyone nominated is going to be an "executive power" believer and at some level personally loyal to the current republican hierarchy (and, yes, that is bothersome, and "not right" in both senses of the word)

but... I think most of the debate is missing the main surprise in the SC appointments, which is that they are going to vote to sharply narrow the "commerce clause".
Much of modern federal power derives from a broad interpretation of the "commerce clause", interpreted to mean that that federal government can regulate broadly anything that could conceivably cross state borders or affect interstate commerce; as opposed to a narrow interpretation, that basically means the Congress can prevent Tennessee from setting up border crossings and setting tariffs on Kentucky moonshine. (case was whosits vs wotsits some time ago - I ANAL).

Knock out the broad commerce clause and you significantly weaken the regulatory power of the feds, in favour of stronger corporate activities, and you put pressures in individual states to lower their local regulations to the lowest common denominator - an internal "globalization". Might even provide long term broad benefits, but definitely provides short term narrow benefits to some corporate sectors.

Interesting times.
I think they need one more vote on the court though, to do it.