Some opponents of our permissive abortion laws like to point to "activist" judges who read "new" rights into the constitution, and thereby helped cause the moral decline of America.
I just realized that one problem with this argument is that abortion was not illegal in 1776. It wasn't. Britain passed some of first anti-abortion laws in 1803, and the U.S. followed, but abortion was a widespread practice of midwives and doctors until the late 19th century, when, as part of a backlash against suffrage, and partly as a humanitarian movement, it was steadily restricted.
So if a nominee to the Supreme Court was determined to divest the court of rulings that were not faithful to the vision of constitutional government held by the founding fathers, he might just come to the conclusion that, as in 1776, the state has no business intruding into women's bodies.
[added May 2008] I suppose Mr. Alito or Mr. Roberts or-- God help us-- Clarence Thomas-- might respond that advances in science and medicine since 1776 have enlarged our understanding of life inside the womb and so on, and therefore justifies a more restrictive ruling on the issue. Well, well, well-- isn't that exactly the argument of those non strict contructionalist judges who believe the Constitution is a living document that needs to be understood in the light of history and science. Maybe, given today's realities, the 2nd amendment doesn't make any sense any more.
And maybe now I understand why the Supreme Court hasn't done anything to stop the use of torture by the U.S. government: in 1776, Trial by Ordeal was not so far removed from normal judicial practice.