[EternalVigilance]

Second, even if it is overturned, the Constitution is specific - the powers not enumerated in it are reserved for the states or the people, namely, it would come down to a state by state vote on the subject, unless, of course, you could get an anti-abortion amendment to the constitution.

Oh Lord. Being preached to by a Brit on the American Constitution. It's really too late at night for this. But, here's your answer anyway: The Court could rule that the child in the womb is a person (which they are, of course) leaving them protected by the words of the Preamble and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Bingo. Problem solved.

[You Dirty Rats]

The Court could rule that the child in the womb is a person (which they are, of course) leaving them protected by the words of the Preamble and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Bingo. Problem solved.

"My dear guests, I am Mr. Roark, your host. Welcome to Fantasy Island!!"

[IslandJeff]

You seem to have forgotten stare decisis in your analysis. Our common law Crown FReeper could have a great point, here.

[nopardons]

Which court is going to do that? The SCOTUS? NOW? Who is going to bring the law suit and HOW is it going to get all the way up to the SCOTUS and WHEN ( as in how long ) will THAT take?

[MadIvan]

The Court could rule that the child in the womb is a person (which they are, of course) leaving them protected by the words of the Preamble and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Bingo. Problem solved.

Again, Rudy personally would not do this. So long as his judicial appointments are in the mould of Roberts and Alito, what do you care?

If people with your point of view made your support conditional on his proposing such people to the Supreme Court, you'd have a political bargaining chip to cash in with him if he won. If the Democrats win, you have nothing. If you demonise him, again, you have no chips to cash.

Ivan