Posted on 07/19/2005 6:49:13 AM PDT by Pyro7480
And it would be confirmation suicide for a judge to come out against Roe v. Wade.
Roe v. Wade can be dismembered by applying a federalist approach. And this judge is a member of the Federalist Society and has shown limited-government thinking in a couple of her writings that I have seen. So I'm not ready to throw her under the bus until I see more.
Honestly, I could care less where a judge stands on "issues". Her record indicates that she follows the law as written and the Constitution, and that's what I do care about -- I don't want a "conservative activist" judge any more than a "liberal activist" judge. I want a judge to follow the law and the Constitution, and the rest will sort itself out.
Also, google around for Margaret Sanger (planned parenthood's founder) and eugenics.
If lower court judges won't challenge previous SCOTUS decisions,
then the SCOTUS will never have an opportunity to review and correct its previous errors.
THAT's the problem here.
That means nothing as, her position as an appeals court judge requires her to rule IAW established supreme court precident, even when such rulings are crap. AS a robed master, she can rule based on the Constitution if she desires.
More important would be her view on Stare Decisis. Does she view bad precident as outranking clear intent?
She just notes that the Supreme Court has said so and that as a lower court justice she is bound by Supreme Court precedent.
Believe me, I'm not leading the Edith Clements parade ... but I do want to give her a fair chance.
From what I've read, she very well might be. That quote was in the context of her confirmation hearing for the 5th Circuit. Do you think a judge would be nominated for that slot who dissented from Supreme Court precedent?
Roe v. Wade will gradually be dismembered, not overturned. And IMO that will happen with federalist judges refusing to overturn state restrictions.
That's as nutty as the notion that liberals support abortion in an effort to keep the black population down. Both bizarre extremes seen here.
Fine statement of the issue. To which I would add this question ...
Does she view Roe as bad precedent?
The answer to the abortion question was in upholding the previous rulings, and was the correct constitiutional answer until the law itself is modified.
We really won't know how Clement will vote on a lot of things yet. I would be very interested to hear her views on the Constitution and its interpretation in general. However, I am willing to give Bush the benefit of the doubt here; I hope it will be a fairly easy confirmation battle and get someone to replace O'Connor as quickly as possible. Of course, we can expect the lunatics on the left to paint her with a very broad brush...
Smirky Grin, and a wink, wink.
Well, she is exactly right when she says that abortion is constitutionally protected. After all, Roe v Wade IS the law of the land. However, has she ever said that she IS IN FAVOR OF that constitutional protection?
So... no third term for W, you're thinking?
Dan
ROE V. WADE WILL NEVER BE OVERTURNED. NEVER. NEVER. NEVER. Once you accept this, maybe you can make decisions that would be good for this Country. There are other issues besides abortion. Yikes.
No.... one that admits that NO governmental entity has the authority to legitimatize murder.
While I agree that she is conforming to the SCOTUS decision in her statement, it worries me that she might accept stare decisis should she sit on that court.
I don't think we will EVER see another SCJ who does not support the right to abort.
I think those of us who are anti-abortion need to do a better job of distributing literature with graphic photos.
It was the photos that changed MY mind about abortion a few years back.
i'd like to know more about Corrigan. can't find much about her other than she's member of federalist society, and big into foster care. she looks to be pushing issues concerning capping child support payments and giving dads more rights, altho not giving them a say in child's right to life.
can't find anything specific in relation to 2d amendment, immigration, abortion or gay-marriage.
any help here?
I'm hoping that as a good Alabama girl she thinks killing unborn children is a legal and moral abomination.
All the same I'd just as soon he nominated someone else.
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.