Posted on 07/19/2005 6:49:13 AM PDT by Pyro7480
Let's not bash Clement on the basis of a MSM story, remember the left likes to pull our chains and trick us to eat our own.
If we have the facts on Clement, carefully post here and educate us as to her stance on important issues. Don't just rely on the press hogwash.
What state is Clement from?
I have not seen statistics on abortions among whites and minorities. Are the minority women more likely to procure abortions than whites?
I agree. I would want to see the context of the alleged qote before making up my mind. If it was a part of her last confirmation hearing, I am not worried. As a judge on a lower court, she was required to uphold Supreme Court rulings. Even Michael McConnell, whom everyone here seems to acknowledge as a sound conservative, agreed that he would have to uphold Roe v. Wade as an appeals court judge.
Alabama
It gets worse--as a young woman I was told by people on the left (in NOW) that making abortion illegal was a plot by the right to force white women to have babies to increase the white population. "A Handmaid's Tale" was considered a vision of the future, not just a sci-fi novel. Many of us bought into this nonsense conspiracy, as liberals are still buying into it today.
Question 2B: Do you believe the constitution contemplates a ``right to privacy''?
Answer: Yes, as I stated in my responses to the follow-up questions asked by Senator Kohl, I do believe that the Constitution contemplates a right to privacy. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the Constitution encompasses a right to privacy.
Question 2C: Do you believe the constitutional right to privacy encompasses a woman's right to have an abortion?
Answer: The Supreme Court has clearly held that the right to privacy guaranteed by the Constitution includes the right to have an abortion. The cases handed down by the Supreme Court on the right to abortion have reaffirmed and redefined this right, and the law is settled in that regard. If confirmed, I will faithfully apply Supreme Court precedent.
Let the parsing begin.
Apparently she has eased fears over at the WH...Souter redux?? http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1445955/posts/
THE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION INCLUDES THE RIGHT TO HAVE AN ABORTION.
A person would have had to been asleep for 32 years not to know that. What does the "religious right" expect, a nominee who says, "Gee, I didn't know the Supreme Court had made abortion legal. When did they do that? Are you sure?"
Sorry for screaming, but the chicken littles don't seem to hear anything less, and the Bush-haters try to pretend not to hear anything at all.
Thank you for this rational post.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
She chose her words pretty carefully ... she never says she thinks Roe is constitutional, just that the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that way.
As an appeal court justice she felt bound to follow that precedent ... on the Supreme Court it may be a different story.
That's my optimistic reading of the "penumbra" of her statement. :-)
Any would-be lower court judge who said he/she does not intend to follow the precedents of the US Supreme Court would be clearly out of line. That is exactly what this judge is saying in this Q&A exchange.
It is an entirely different kettle of fish to be on the Supreme Court where those precedents are written and established.
That's the way this four-decade veteran of Supreme Court research sees this issue.
Congressman Billybob
Well, it doesn't give us a warm fuzzy. Technically her statement is correct from the perspective of a circuit court judge. Maybe her answer was to appease Democrats drilling her. But then again, she does not have a record that indicates, so the question still lingers on where she stands on many conservative issues. From what all I have heard she is brilliant.
That's a good point BillyBob. I'm not as concerned now.
Of course, you may very well prefer someone who won't defer to such bad precedent.
If this is the pick then we should all thank GW for screwing the base once again. Abortion is not a constitutional right, it should be decided by the states. This woman is not a constitutionalist.
The Constitution has no guarantee to a right of privacy.
As a percentage of respective populations, yes. I saw a stat a while back that for every 100 live minority births, there are 39 abortions. The ratio is 100:25 for whites.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.