I don't know where your're getting your facts on this but why the fear to move this decision back to the states where it belongs.

I don't have a fear of this. I don't have much interest in the abortion issue at all. It's a cesspool as far as I'm concerned. It's been used against us, to divide us, to get votes, to make money, to destroy peoples faith, to alter the way people feel about Christianity, to elect bozos, to threaten people, to label people, to harm people, to kill people, to polarize the nation, to anger people, and to distract us from what truly ails us as a society. So, I see no good in the issue at all. It's been set up as an issue that is used to create victims and villains for public display...where really what we have are people that deserve our compassion. The most scurrilous aspect of it is that people like Bushco use it knowing full well it's a way to twist your good intentions against you. So, while you may be coming at it from a faith based perspective, which I respect, they are looking at in a very deceptive and deceitful manner. I see using a persons own good intentions against them as incredibly disgusting. So let's just be clear...I don't have fear, I have disgust.

 Then we will see which states overturn it. My money is the majority of the states would support the overturn.

Well, maybe the Bible Belt states sure. I think this issue is really like the battery in your car. People don't think about it until it stops functioning, then they do something about it. If this issue ever reached the Supreme Court again, which is what would have to happen, and it was overturned...then we would see who really wants what. Keep in mind that just because Bush appoints a couple of judges does not mean the balance suddenly swings to "hardcore Christian right values" because these judges will still be required to interpret the law...not just make it up as they go (something this administration is fond of and seems to be what right wingnuts think they have a free pass to do now).

Also, what do you consider a majority, Pat? The fact is the "majority" of the population of this country live in a "minority" of the states. So, is a "majority" to you the local elected officials or is it the people of this country? Plus, you seem to be redefining what this country is all about...Freedom for one and all...you seem to like a simple "majority rules" and has full permission to trample the minority.

Be careful what you wish for...the Kelo decision in the court won because it benefits the "majority" more than the individual or "minority"...you seem to have been fooled into joining the argument that "majority" comes before "minority" in a democracy and so in that regard if you chase the ideas you seem to espouse then the Kelo decision meets your ideals. This is why careful consideration is due, not based on your faith and religious beliefs, but on how this effects government decisions in the future...once a precedent is set it can be used in other circumstances...so personal views need to be set aside and the true weight of the action needs to be considered. You could win an overturn of Roe v. Wade and be drinking your bubbly to celebrate and while you are the precedent that had been set is being turned against you. The issue is not as simple as "let's save babies" and you have to come to terms with that. In the Kelo case what's good for the "majority" won and you don't like it...you have not considered that it seems...

Reg the fact of the matter is the justices are liberal and they vote that way and did so in the imminent domain case.

You are now stating opinion not fact. The fact is these judges, as I already stated, were sold by Republican presidents and administrations to other Republicans as "true conservatives." So, are they really liberal or are they moderates you'd prefer to move further to the right? Reagan won the support of both Democrats and Republicans and so did Clinton. This is because they were more moderate than radical left or right. Nobody should want a judge on the court that is going to rule with partisan politics at the base of their decision...but I get the feeling that is what you'd prefer to see. You believe that if it is what the "majority" (whatever that means to you) wants the "minority" loses correct? This being the case anything the benefits the many more than the one or the few wins, right? So, by that thinking, again, Kelo was a good choice...it's designed to benefit the many. See, in my thinking that is not at all how our government is supposed to work...our government should be attempting to create the same protections and freedoms for the one and the all. The issue with creating that sort of government today is we have a constant shrill shrieking argument from people who feel they should be able to inject their personal "faith, feelings, beliefs, desires" into the process. Anything that is designed to conform to one groups narrow goals, say Christianity or the Oil industry, should be quickly rejected by government on the basis of not setting precedent that can be twisted later for another groups narrow goals. The issue between you and I, Pat, is not one of faith or morals, it's a question of how we understand government and its function. Anyone that tries to twist our differences into a "faith or moral" issue is being dishonest in the extreme...do you see this? 

 Honestly you are beating a dead argument even Green recognized it. But you will persist in your flawed view.

Here is where you are certainly correct. If in fact you dismiss all that I say I am just beating a dead horse. Also, yes, I will persist in sticking with the idea that government should function to protect the freedoms of the one and of the all. I will persist in shooting down the idea that you can bend the rules to your own liking and that you can justify it in the name of God or personal profit. I will not abide any personal intrusion into my home or privacy by federal or state legislators whose motives are most certainly and by our Constitution questionable. I will never sit back and take the lazy man's view of government that if I don't understand it they must know better than I. I will always believe we should all be granted the same personal freedoms and that any attempt to alter that is an attack on what this country...at least at one point in time...stood for. I will also always recognize that an attack on your freedom is also an attack on my freedom and I will act and speak accordingly to prevent that. Even if it's a freedom I don't exorcise.

So, I am clearly on your side, Pat...the question really becomes are you on mine?