Edith Jones over Edith Clement, please!
1 posted on
07/19/2005 6:49:14 AM PDT by
Pyro7480
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-30 next last
To: Pyro7480
2 posted on
07/19/2005 6:50:42 AM PDT by
agitator
(...And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark)
To: Pyro7480
I don't like this pick already.
3 posted on
07/19/2005 6:51:20 AM PDT by
thoughtomator
(For all you love to survive, Islam must be destroyed.)
To: Pyro7480
(Who Thinks Abortion is Constitutionally-Protected)There goes the religious right votes. All those who voted for the first time in 2004 won't waste their time again.
4 posted on
07/19/2005 6:53:32 AM PDT by
concerned about politics
("A people without a heritage are easily persuaded (deceived)" - Karl Marx)
To: Pyro7480
It's still speculation at this point. While I worry as much as anyone that Bush will screw us, I haven't thrown in the towel yet. IIRC Bush surprises us with most of his nominees (some good some bad) so it may well be someone we aren't thinking of at the moment.
5 posted on
07/19/2005 6:53:40 AM PDT by
RockinRight
(Democrats - Trying to make an a$$ out of America since 1933)
To: Pyro7480; ninenot; sittnick
Janice Rogers Brown would be my first choice so long as she is sound on the babies as she appears to be.
11 posted on
07/19/2005 7:06:08 AM PDT by
BlackElk
(Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
To: Pyro7480
To: Pyro7480
Known as a conservative and a strict constructionist in legal circles, Clement also has eased fears among abortion-rights advocates. She has stated that the Supreme Court "has clearly held that the right to privacy guaranteed by the Constitution includes the right to have an abortion" and that "the law is settled in that regard." When, where and in what context was this quote? This is the first I've seen of such a turn of phrase by Clement.
To: Pyro7480
I'm still praying for Janice Brown.
To: Pyro7480
She has stated that the Supreme Court "has clearly held that the right to privacy guaranteed by the Constitution includes the right to have an abortion" and that "the law is settled in that regard." IOW, a 5th Circuit judge doesn't have the authority to overrule the USSC. What's the problem here?
18 posted on
07/19/2005 7:12:30 AM PDT by
kevkrom
(WARNING: If you're not sure whether or not it's sarcasm, it probably is.)
To: Pyro7480
A Tale of Two EdithsFor the conservatives, the most consequential shift would come in flipping the decision on Stenberg v. Carhart (2000) and upholding the federal ban on partial-birth abortion. Either one of the Ediths would guarantee that outcome; and in my own reckoning, such a decision on partial-birth abortion would virtually bring to an end the Roe v. Wade regime. For it would send up a signal to legislatures throughout the country that the Court was now open for business in sustaining many varieties of restriction on abortion.
19 posted on
07/19/2005 7:12:53 AM PDT by
byteback
To: Pyro7480
What state is Clement from?
22 posted on
07/19/2005 7:21:36 AM PDT by
Theodore R.
(Cowardice is forever!)
To: Pyro7480
To: Pyro7480
I know the law is settled. But I don't think
Roe is constitutional. A good jurist should be able to appreciate the difference.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
32 posted on
07/19/2005 7:34:11 AM PDT by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
To: Pyro7480
She doesn't say she agreed that Roe was correctly decided, but that she would defer to precedent under the legal doctrine of stare decisis. What's the difference? I wrote about it
here.
Of course, you may very well prefer someone who won't defer to such bad precedent.
37 posted on
07/19/2005 7:42:26 AM PDT by
Darth Reagan
(Hokie religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side.)
To: Pyro7480
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.
38 posted on
07/19/2005 7:43:48 AM PDT by
sasafras
(Enforce the border, take away all the benefits and penalize employers who hire illegals)
To: Pyro7480
Looks like she fits the Bush definition of
"conservative".
Smirky Grin, and a wink, wink.
51 posted on
07/19/2005 7:52:23 AM PDT by
gitmogrunt
(undecorated and proud. God Bless our troops and their Families.)
To: Pyro7480
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?
52 posted on
07/19/2005 7:53:03 AM PDT by
SuziQ
To: Pyro7480
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?
59 posted on
07/19/2005 7:59:54 AM PDT by
absolootezer0
("My God, why have you forsaken us.. no wait, its the liberals that have forsaken you... my bad")
To: Pyro7480
Apparently all those who are being considered are women.
That already suggests that the selection is going to be PC.
65 posted on
07/19/2005 8:04:52 AM PDT by
kidd
To: Pyro7480
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.
78 posted on
07/19/2005 8:24:00 AM PDT by
xzins
(Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-30 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson