The recent confirmations of two Bush-nominated, Supreme Court justices saw an examination of the mindsets of the nominees. The judicial hearings were important, but they tell only half of the story. After all, the rhetoric of the man who nominated the justices is perhaps equally important. So what could George Bush possibly have said to yield some insight into the two men who are supposed to approach each case with an open, objective mind? It happened in the second 2004 presidential election debate: <http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004c.html [Broken]> President Bush’s comments have been interpreted as a “secret message” to the pro-life portion of the country. By mentioning the Dred Scott case, Bush was allegedly drawing a parallel to the Roe v. Wade case. Such a connection would assume that the Dred Scott ruling, that slaves were not “citizens” with protection under the Constitution, is analogous to the Roe v. Wade ruling that fetuses are not “citizens” with protection under the Constitution. Though Bush made this comment in 2004, its reverberations are especially relevant today. Assuming George Bush maintained his Supreme Court policy, John Roberts and Samuel Alito would both be expected to make the Dred Scott v. Sandford – Roe v. Wade connection in terms of judicial precedence to be considered in a ruling on abortion. What do you think? Does the link between Roe v. Wade and Dred Scott v. Sandford stand? And, regardless of your position, what ruling would you expect the Court to reach?