Reply #42: Actually,

[lastliberalintexas]

he could appoint them to the lower courts. The president has the ability to appoint to more than just the SC you know. Smart a** comments about being able to count to 9 notwithstanding.

And while that would not put Roe v. Wade in peril *nationwide*, it could make it harder for women in certain appellate circuits to obtain access to certain health care procedures.

And if these judges do not find a right to privacy in the Constitution, what else would they be opposed to? Would Kerry be willing to appoint an allegedly strict constructionist judge who would overturn Griswold? If a judicial candidate doesn't believe that implied rights of the citizenry can be found in the Constitution so as to deny governmental control over private lives, why would a Dem/liberal/progressive want to nominate such an individual to a seat FOR LIFE?

The allegations that these comments of Kerry's (and many others) are just campaign rhetoric are ridiculous. He's probably alienating at least as many (or more) liberals as he is attracting "pro-lifers" with these comments. Not a good campaign move.