"You do him an injustice. He's absolutely correct about THIS fight. To ignore this fact is to ignore a qualitative difference."
He is correct that this filibuster fight is simply the logical extension of politicization of the judiciary. The problem is that he ignores the fact that it didn't start with Roe, as do most folks, because this board seems to generally think that the role of the justices is to reverse Roe by ruling that abortion is not only not a fundamental right, it's murder.
Murder it may be, but murder is punished under state laws, not federal ones. Reversing Roe ought to result in more federalism, not more federal judiciary power-grabbing. And appointing conservative judges does not mean a new reign of conservative authoritarianism. Unless we simply want the pendulum to swing the other way again someday, and make abortion not only legal, but start preparing for liberal justices to rule that laws which force abortion are legal, too.
The solution to this problem is not simply "outjudiciarying" them. It's permanently and clearly limiting the size of the federal government as we do.
No one on the right is asking for anything more than original intent judges. The Schiavo case is a red herring. Federalism is the one thing we do NOT have under the current state of affairs.