On Roberts: Let's cut to the chase

The mainstream media, and even many bloggers, have been trying to be "mature" by not jumping to conclusions about John Roberts, President Bush's nominee to the Supreme Court, and not talking too much about Roe V. Waid. It's been less than 24 hours, and I'm already sick of hearing about his intellectualism and how much Democrats respect him.

This is the real story that the news media should be reporting.

1. Roberts will vote to overturn Roe if given the chance, as evidenced by his past writings.
2. Roberts replacing the pro-Roe Justice O'Connor shifts the court one step in the anti-Roe direction.
3. The Supreme Court will need just one more such step to overturn Roe.
4. Pro-Roe Justice John Paul Stevens is 85 years old.

In my view, that leaves 4 possible scenarios:
1. Stevens retires before Bush's second term ends.
1.1 Bush appoints another anti-Roe justice. Roe is overturned.
1.2 Bush appoints Roberto Gonzales, because of loyalty. Roe is not overturned.

2. Stevens retires after Bush's second term ends.
2.1 The next president is pro-life. Roe is overturned.
2.2 The next president is pro-choice. Roe is not overturned.

It's all well and good to hear that Roberts gets a lump in his throat when he thinks about the Supreme Court and that he's "anchored in modern law" (New York Times). But we've got ourselves a ballgame here, with big-time consequences. The mainstream media would do us a lot of good by not being obtuse about it.