Posted on 07/19/2005 6:49:13 AM PDT by Pyro7480
I don't accept the legitimacy of Roe v. Wade, it is a plainly unconstitutional decision. If the legislature makes it law, so be it, but courts do not make law under our Constitution, and until that is the case in reality I will be dissatisfied and work for change.
When they say she is seen as a conservative strict constructionist and then say she supports Roe, we have the media saying absolutely contradictory things.
If she is nominated, she will have a long record and that will be viewed in detail. I would not read much into anything she says in the hearings as no judge worth a damn will comment in a manner that details specific views.
I suspect she is a real strict constructionist and will move judiciously to reign in Roe, as well as other excesses.
One thing that does seem to be clear. She is FAR more of a Constitutionalist that O'Conner.
Roe v. Wade is bad law in many respects and will be overturned if our country continues down its current path. Roe v. Wade is kind of a bellweather. I have never seen a judge that supports Roe v. Wade that was worthy on many other rulings.
What is your leaning as to the accuracy of this 'leak' that Clement will be named? Am starting to have a gut instinct that this is a misdirection leak, and the actual nominee will be someone else. But I have no sources, nor a DC or legal background.
Apparently all those who are being considered are women.
That already suggests that the selection is going to be PC.
i've heard this alot, specifically in regards to what parties stand for. if republicans support the rich and enterprising, then they will do anything they can to keep those people rich and enterprising, and add more to their ranks. whereas if democrats support the poor and downtrodden, what will they do to keep voters?
Abortion is a state issue, and the Supreme Court has no business forcing states to allow or forbid it. If this is her philosophy on this and other similar issues, then she will be a good judge.
Fine...keep living in your fantasy world.
There are a whole lot of people who will leave the GOP (me included) if we come to believe that.
Right, but Garza felt compelled, when the issue arose, to follow Roe v. Wade while criticizing it in an opinion. If Clement was strongly anti-Roe, she could have qualified her comment.
The context in which she said that is important. A Circuit Court does not have the authority to overrule the USSC. I guess we only hate activist judges when they're liberals.
Stare decisis applies if the opinion is a reasonable interpretation of the text of the Constitution in light of it's original meaning.
I love how Republicans stand against affirmative action while practicing it.
That's the part that bothers me, too ... although I'm sure the White House handlers were telling her, "Don't say more than you need to. Just get confirmed."
I would certainly agree with this statement, but abortion is a RIGHTS issue at the state OR national level.
Our government was created for one purpose only..to protect our rights. Our right to own property, our right to be secure in our homes...without our right to LIFE, all the other rights are meaningless.
I truly believe that since the court's right to murder the unborn was set into *law*, it has been expanded to include the murder of children AFTER their birth, and why women are sometimes given lighter sentences in child murder cases than men are.
(Not to mention it cheapens the existence of life in general)
Right now, I'm like a lot of other FReepers....keeping my fingers crossed and hoping that the Republicans don't decide to screw their base yet again.
HARRY REID WILL TEAM UP WITH DANELLE SPENCER (Dee from "What's Happening") TO WIN THE NEXT "DANCING WITH THE STARS"!!!
I can make unsupported predictions in capital letters too.
Right now we are two judges away, if we get this one confirmed we will be one judge away from overturning Roe v. Wade and many other bad decisions. You see that as 6/9ths empty, I see it as 3/9ths full and needing just 2 more 9ths. That is not fantasy world. The biggest thing keeping us from that goal will be Hillary in 2008.
Any justice who gets appointed who is on record saying that abortion is constitutionally protected is not an originalist. Such an appointment would be a betrayal of a promise to appoint only strict constructionists.
I'd rather have Gonzales than that.
The opinions were already being written ... then Anthony Kennedy got cold feet and backed out.
If we had gotten Bork instead of Kennedy, Roe would be history.
Seriously, it seems like people were just waiting to b**ch about the choice, and pay no attention to the facts. Read the quote (and the context) again -- she says that the USSC says that abortion is constitutionally protected, she does not present her own view on the subject, which is only proper in a confirmation hearing.
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.