I have to say that I would rather have a brilliant legal mind of either side rather than a party-line moron

Well, Scalia is a brilliant party-line guy (and actually, I bet he would be 90% less galling if he weren't also obnoxious), and lefties loathe and fear him, but he's certainly a worthy opponent. (I just wish he weren't so obnoxious! I mean, hello! You are wearing those robes to rescue you from any intimations of flab or ugly neckties. Have some dignity above the neck, will you?)

Thomas is an idiot party-line guy, and he's just an embarrassing boob in a dress.

Brain-to-brain, I think I could beat Thomas in single combat. But Scalia has been known to admit, grudgingly, that things like desegregation are worthwhile despite their violating his intellectual method; whereas, if the Republican party asked him to, Thomas would insist that gravity does not exist right until the moment the falling piano squashed him flat.

I wasn't going to name names, but you pegged it. Thomas is a total waste of oxygen. Scalia's obnoxious, but he's smart enough that I know he has a reason for his decisions. I'd take Scalia over Thomas on the Court any day.

Well the will of, what, 52% of the people.

And that's only 52% of whatever the percentage of eligible voters who voted (which is what - 65% or something).

He has worked to overturn Roe v. Wade, but he has also said that was for a client and what you just said. I had just head he had worked to overturn it, but not the other part in my first post.

And I'm hoping that Dobson was only paying attention to the first part, cause like Gud I find that sort of approval mighty scary. Maybe Dobson wants the Dems to put up a fight, so the fillibuster gets nuked.

Roberts graduated Harvard Law at age 24 or something, so he's not lacking in smarts (or at least a strong work ethic). However, from what I heard his wife is part of Feminists for Life which is an anti-Roe-v-Wade group.

Eight months later, I still got no fight. It's the will of the people, right?

I'm really struggling with that. It was one thing before the most recent election, when you could argue that people didn't really know what they were getting. Now, though? I remember that "I'm sorry" site and all the responses from people overseas saying we forgive you and we know you tried and it's the government, not the people, etc., and I'm like - no, that doesn't fly anymore. We did this.

And eventual swingback or no - Roberts is 50 years old. Whoever replaces Renquist won't be much older, and there could be more replacements. The Repubs have been very, very focused on trying to implement changes that are virutally unreversible.

And somehow, things like the Schiavo travesty get shrugged off. And the Dems let themselves get snookered into a "compromise" over the filibuster. And on and on. I've never, ever felt this kind of helpless anger and disconnection before, and it's a constant struggle not to just say "you know what, fuck us. We got the government we asked for, and now we get to reap the rewards."

I'd take Scalia over Thomas on the Court any day.

Yeah. It's so much less galling when you can at least believe the people making the decisions you disagree with have a reasoned opinion.

With Roberts, I do think it's hard to parse out what people actually think on specific issues in situations like this -- he's clearly a conservative guy, so he's had conservative jobs, so he's argued the conservative side of issues. He hasn't been a judge that long to have a whole body of his own opinions to draw from.

I'd take Scalia over Thomas on the Court any day.

After Scalia's dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, I have the same feeling about Scalia vs. Thomas that Xander had when Olaf asked him to choose between Willow and Anya.

I'm depressed - and have been for some time - about the state of women's rights and privacy, and I'm not optimistic about the future.

I think that it's like a slingshot. The band has been pulled as tightly as possible to the right, and the tension has maxed out. It will either break or completely snap back to the left. But not before we get a rock between the eyes.

Roberts graduated Harvard Law at age 24 or something, so he's not lacking in smarts (or at least a strong work ethic).

Or money. I know too many twits who can't find their butt with both hands who've graduated young from Harvard Law to be all that impressed with that CV entry. Main deputy solicitor general's a little more impressive. I know the current solicitor general (until recently was deputy), and he's smart and a hard worker. Conservative as all get out and a NASCAR fan in the mix.

However, from what I heard his wife is part of Feminists for Life which is an anti-Roe-v-Wade group.

Knowing the hours successful attorneys pull, he's probably seen her twice in the last 5 years.

Scalia's a brilliant legal mind, but that doesn't mean he doesn't frame his arguments to get him the outcome he wants.

whereas, if the Republican party asked him to, Thomas would insist that gravity does not exist right until the moment the falling piano squashed him flat.

Ok, who do I have to sell my soul to to make this happen?

I'm kind of conflicted because his opinion on Roe vs. Wade as publicly stated mirrors my own (disagree personally but believe it should be enforced as the Will of the People/Supreme Court). But most of the people who agree with me on that issue swing WAY further right on everything else.