[shhrubbery!]

If Norma's case is based on her assertion that the facts used to decide Roe were wrong (i.e., based on a lie that she was raped), I doubt the Court will overturn Roe based on that.

But I think there is plenty else out there to give us hope of seeing Roe overturned in our lifetimes.

Here's one hopeful sign: On Chris Matthew's show 'Hardball' a few days ago, Matthews quoted Donna Brazile as saying that when she went home to her folks in Louisiana, they asked her why the Democratic party was the party of killing babies.

Brazile seemed to be implying that the Dim party is doomed, if it does not change its bloody pro-abort image.

The Dims, thanks to this last election, are waking up to the fact that much of the American public knows that abortion is a ghastly crime.

The Supreme Court is not immune to public opinion. I expect that Justices Kennedy and O'Connor, both susceptible to swaying in the fickle breezes of public opinion, might actually sway in the right direction for a change -- when the right case comes before the Court.

[davidosborne]

The point of this whole matter is to BRING the matter before the court, and have the CURRENT court decide if the matter was correctly or INcorrectly decided originally....

[wouldntbprudent]

Re Brazile being asked why the Rats are the party of killing babies---

One thing this case will do is highlight, again, that the Rats are indeed the party of killing babies, they are indeed the people who want justices on the SCOTUS who support killing babies, etc.

[LibertarianInExile]

Dream on. Neither of those justices is doing crap.

The only chances this will change are replacements for O'Connor and other libs and/or constitutional amendment. The latter won't happen. The former might, given the age of liberal justices.