In all seriousness (and I’m not playing dumb here) – I’m probably the wrong conservative to ask about the ‘plan’, as you put it – I’m disgusted in equal proportions by the rabidly pro-life, and the rabidly pro-choice. It just ain’t my favorite issue.

I’m sure for some Alito supporters, that was the plan – maybe most. Like I said, I don’t know. For me, it wasn’t…but I’ve laid out my position for you, and it’s probably not pro-life enough for a lot of conservatives (though, like most conservatives, and I suspect quite a few liberals, I feel a visceral dislike of the procedure)…

I’ve always felt that, even if Rove WERE overturned, that the states would keep it legal, anyway -but I guess South Dakota challenges that assumption, eh?…

Rove? An interesting slip…

For decades the States (the red States; no one expects New York or California to outlaw abortion any time soon) have had to content themselves with chipping away at the periphery of Roe: a parental notification requirement here, a two-week waiting period there …

South Dakota is the first frontal assault on Roe. Now that the anti-Roe forces believe that they have the votes on the SCOTUS to overturn Roe, they have moved very quickly to put forward a case which directly challenged Roe’s core findings.

If the South Dakota law is upheld, you’ll see similar legislation in a dozen other States within months.

That was clearly the plan wasn’t it? That was why this nomination was so hard-fought (on both sides).

I’ve always felt that, even if Rove WERE overturned, that the states would keep it legal, anyway -but I guess South Dakota challenges that assumption, eh?…

My own feeling, that I’ve stated before, is that I’d just as soon have it legal, but heavily restricted…I know that makes me a neanderthal is some quarters, but that’s my story and I’m sticking to it…

I’m trying to be a realist here…

So am I.

The South Dakota law is sure to come before the Supreme Court. And I would be very surprised, were Alito to vote to strike it down. The only question is whether he has 4 other like-minded votes.

I’m not sure, but I think he does …

Sort of like how Congressmen who campaign against corruption seem to lose their appetite for reform once elected…

I’m trying to be a realist here, and not an idealist…

[I]t’s kind of the basis for the whole school of thought that the Constitution is a living document, isn’t it?

A school of thought which, I had been given to understand, was staunchly-opposed by conservatives such as yourself. Weren’t we supposed to be appointing strict-constructionists/originalists to the bench?

[T]he invention of the right to privacy to rule in Roe being a perfect example.

Exactly. Weren’t these conservative appointments supposed to bring to an end the practice of Justices “inventing” constitutional rights not in the text of the Constitution? Wasn’t that the whole point?

You’ll forgive me for being a little confused.

I know that doesn’t fit with the strict-constructionist viewpoint, but I think it probably fits the reality…

Do you really think Alito, given the opportunity to rule on the South Dakota law, will vote to uphold Roe? If so, I think you are the only Alito supporter who believes that.

The indisputable fact is that the American people overwhelmingly support an end to partial-birth abortions, and (by a much narrower margin) tend to support the continuation of Roe…and I think that’s the way the court will eventually decide…

Alito was nominated to the SCOTUS, with the express idea that he (along with new “conservative majority” on the Court) would vote to overturn Roe-vs-Wade at the earliest opportunity. Is there a shred of doubt (among either his supporters or his opponents) that he will do so?

This particular case may end up being decided narrowly (absence of a “health of the mother” exception is just fine). But there are other cases on the way. Jane is right to be alarmed (though I’m not sure I agree with her tactics).