My question is whether she views the constitution as a "living document" and whether she sees abortion as belonging to the states.
Roe V. Wade federalized the abortion issue and imposed one standard on all of the states.
We need more Clarence Thomases and fewer David Souters. She does lack political experience.....Maybe that is a positive.
My question is whether she views the constitution as a "living document" and whether she sees abortion as belonging to the states.
That is the key question, imo, and what people should focus on. Her personal feelings about abortion are nothing but a smokescreen for the heart of the issue. If she views the constitution as a "living document", she's out of the running. If she is a constitutionalist she'd favor state rights and the reversal of R v W on that basis alone. If so, people are having hysterics over nothing. She'd essentially be on our side. BTW, I still haven't fallen victim to the thought 1) Hill is the nominee 2) Condi is the only one that can beat her. I tend to reject the conventional wisdom of the day.