Apparently he's trying to downplay this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/02/AR2005120200962.html
Key quote: As for the earlier memo, [Senator Specter] said, "I asked him about the line here, 'The Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion.' And he identifies that as a personal opinion . . . and he said that his personal opinion would not be a factor in his judicial decision."
Anyone more informed than I care to explain how that makes a lick of sense? Namely, that the personal opinion of a lawyer/judge as to what is or is not constitutional *will not be a factor his judicial decision*? Obviously personal interpretation doesn't automatically trump precedent, but unless I'm miss something here it would always be a factor, particularly on the Supreme Court.