[Huck]

Pro-Constitution judges ARE pro-life.

Not necessarily. I think Scalia would toss it back to the states, which is not a pro-life position, it's a pro-Constitution position.

Unless you think abortion violates a constitutional right to life. Not sure that one's ever been argued. Live by the penumbra, die by the penumbra I guess.

[EGPWS]

Not necessarily. I think Scalia would toss it back to the states, which is not a pro-life position, it's a pro-Constitution position.

Gee, what a long lost concept! : (

[ohioWfan]

How about going at it from the opposite side and dismantling the leftist line that abortion IS a Constitutional right?

(I still believe that anyone strictly interpreting the Constitution would be essentially pro-life, in that they would affirm that Roe is UNconstitutional. Whether or not the authority goes to the states wouldn't change that fundamental interpretation of how laws are supposed to be made, would it?)

[streetpreacher]

I think the Court could legitimately go beyond just overturning Roe v. Wade and move to outlaw abortion, being that the right to life is the most clear constitutional principle. No one has a right to deny the right to life to another without due process of law, even the states.

I wouldn't expect that to happen though. For one thing, NOW would suicide-bomb the Judges' chambers.

[denydenydeny]

Not necessarily. I think Scalia would toss it back to the states, which is not a pro-life position, it's a pro-Constitution position.

I don't get your point. Any overturning of Roe would send the issue to the states.