What's the point of having the right if there is no availability?  Is re-electing Obama going to restore access in states where there is little to none?

The only opportunity to ensure some security for Roe v. Wade would be if one of the conservative justices has to be replaced, and I don't find anything in Obama's record, actions or policy preferences that gives me any confidence that he would take that opportunity to appoint a liberal justice.

Because, remember - it isn't just Roe v. Wade that could be affected, it's also the universe of all the stuff of the Bush administration that Obama has quite enthusiastically continued: erosion of privacy rights, state secrets, indefinite detention - not to mention all the corporate-friendly stuff that's working quite well for Obama.

So how much of a change in practical terms would occur, and what would be the liberal backlash such a ruling would engender?  The states where reproductive choice is available would no doubt continue to allow for such services, or face the wrath of millions of voters.  Those states voters would support a ban on abortion in all likelihood are already effectively denying women their right to choice.

I am not in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade which I have read several times and which I find, contrary to many, an eminently reasonable opinion that balances a woman's right with the right of the state to regulate, and importantly not necessarily prohibit, late term abortions.  But I do wonder about the practical effect of the worst case scenario given the decades that have passed  and the generations of women who have come of age in a post-Roe v. Wade environment. It is one thing to extend recognition to a woman's right to privacy as the Roe Court did, quite another to take away a right that by now many take for granted in a society where, in comparison to just 30-40 years ago, women rightfully have much more lifestyle/career choices.

Should SCOTUS overturn Roe then I think the Right would face backlash at least as politically ferocious as liberals faced after Roe was decided.  And I question whether the practical impact would be as detrimental as is often painted given the extent to which women in too many states are already effectively being denied their right to choice.  

Please do not understand me to be arguing that Roe should be overturned for the longer term benefit of progressive politics.  I just think Obama, due to his misplaced priorities, is unlikely to be re-elected. Nixon, as astute a politician as he was evil, said an incumbent could not win with 7% unemployment.  Obama is looking at 9-10%, probably more if unemployment were still calculated as it was in Tricky Dick's time. After watching Reagan win in landslides and Boy George being re-elected, I take little comfort from the supposed weakness or craziness of Obama's potential opponents.

Not that the policy shift wouldn't be difficult, it would just be difficult on people that MY consistently has a very hard time relating to and even seeing their position on the game board.  He seems forever unable to grasp their tenuous and precarious positions as well.

Setting aside those ignorant of how unimportant and non-mattering the office is (i.e., those who have never held it), every President eligible for re-election since Wilson (or maybe Coolidge) has run to keep this unimportant, non-mattering office.  With the exception of Johnson and, arguably, Truman*, both of whom were so unpopular by the time they were due to decide on whether to run that they passed on the opportunity.

The argument that "presidents don't matter" is just another of Obama's legion of excuses for his inaction on true-Democratic principles and priorities, and his obeisance to the whims of his bankster masters and funders.  The office of President is unique in giving the holder the ability to set an agenda and move both the bureaucracy and public opinion in fulfillment of it.  No one should have any doubt that, if his agenda involved putting Wall Street banksters in jail, Obama could do it.  He could cajole and compel his appointees to reorient their activites toward prosecuting them.  If Congress decided to get in the way, he could turn his prosecutorial agencies and command of the "bully pulpit" on them, and discipline the media by the use of access - granting and denying it as instruments of favor and fear.

The argument that Presidents don't matter is so much bullsh*t.  If Obama was serious about the Supreme Court falling further into Republican hands, Clarence Thomas would have been under indictment for months already.  Instead, we got contrived default crises to support budget cutting.  Shows you where his priorities are.

-

but ok

there's a chance that Obama might be 10 percent better on this issue than a President Romney

maybe

They'll let it seem close for a bit.  So they can raise that billion.  But in the end it will be an easy win.

I won't vote for him.  But he'll win.  He's been a good little puppet and responded to every tug on his strings.  And he will be rewarded.

Of course, his second term will be worse than his first.  More wars.  More erosion of civil liberties.  More erosion of the welfare state.  More phony "Arab spring" nonsense.  More expansive ridiculous DHS complete with more goofy slogans. More giveaways to corporations. Not to mention continued poor job numbers.  A terrible economy. And so on.

So his negative behavior (in the view of many progressives like myself) gets positively reinforced by his re-election.  Does anyone seriously believe he becomes more confrontational  with right wingnuts at that point?  I think he takes that as affirmation of the rightness of his ways and seeks even more accommodation of the right wing, including accommodating choices of federal judges.

But if you think you can predict how he will proceed on picking a justice for the S.C., I don't think you have been paying attention.

Incidentally, at a "prayer breakfast", Mr. Obama recently singled out Republican Senator Tom Coburn to call his, "brother in Christ".

hat line seems to recognize that so many other arguments for his reelection have been lost, or, at least,  are much more difficult to make.  And, the argument is not even for Supreme Court nominees that are better, in general, but for the specific issue of choice.   It is undoubtedly true that any Republican president will select an anti-choice Supreme Court nominee--for abortion is pervasive in Republican politics.

However, in my view, an Obama nominee who will protect a woman's right to chose and could be counted on to sustain Roe v Wade is not at all a sure thing.  If Justice Ginsberg or Justice Breyer's seat became vacant, then, it would be highly likely; if Justice Scalia or Kennedy were to be replaced, the likelihood would plummet.  In the later situation, there would be a nominee of "balance" and one that could bring bipartisan support. So, in that sense, the odds are better with Obama, but still a roll of the dice.

But still, we have over 800,000 abortions per year in the United States and we have over 200 abortions per 1,000 live births, each and every one of them legal.

Two, that a case will come before the court to overturn R vs W.

Three, that a SCUTUS appointment is more important than a competent president.

Four, that four more years of Obama will give liberals the more appointments in the end.

I understand the importance of a SCUTUS appointment, but IMO is it doesn't outweigh the economy.

Obama is an killing the D name, and sure we might get a nomination, but what if the cost is years of conservative rule.  Years of conservative nominations.

To me, there are too many variables in regards to a possible SCUTUS nomination.  What I do know is Obama is not good for the economy, he's not good for liberals, and that he doesn't represent my values, my wants/needs in a leader.  I am fairly sure four more years is going to diminish the New Deal, and create even more suffering, while stuffing the pockets of the rich at the expense of the Democratic Party's name brand.

If people would use the energy they have spent cheer-leading a horrible President, into finding an electable D alternative, we could all win.

Finally given Obama's record and  republican opposition do you honestly think it is a given that he would appoint a pro-choice judge? Or will he just "reason" that there is no point in trying and pre-negotiate a candidate who can get "approved".