Oh, gee, how encouraging. For the first time in a long time we have the opportunity to guarantee that the Supreme court will shift back to originalism, and all we get is someone who might not be as far to the left as Souter.
Just damn.
You just continue to drown in the liberal spin, no matter how many times it's pointed out to you. The main points of this article are that 1) He believes there is a constitutional right to privacy (there is, except it has nothing to do with abortion) and 2) he made the mandatory comments about respecting "settled law."
So what? And yes, I anticipate your response will be that he didn't have to say what he did about settled law. We have disagreed on that in the past and am certain we'll continue to do so.