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.
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
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?
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...
I admit I am troubled by that, but let me play devil's advocate for a second: this confirmation was for a circuit court seat that doesn't have the same authority to revisit SC decisions like the SC does. In other words, the 5th Circuit is bound to follow the SC, so Roe IS settled law as far as the COA is concerned.
Excellent sourcing, Ollie. As for my parsing:
She did say that the CONSTITUTION found that a right to privacy exists. Which is absolutely correct: the zone of what constitutes search and siezure has always been defined by the concept of privacy.
When asked whether the right to privacy extends to abortion, she did not answer the Yes/No question with a Yes. Instead, she deferred to the US Supreme Court, and promised to faithfully apply precedent.
She is no Judge Moore, but she is no Justice Souter either.
Politically, I would have relished the fight with the Democrats, as it would hand us a winning issue in subsequent elections. And I WOULD feel more comfortable with a noisier conservative, like Rogers-Brown, who would never be tempted to become part of the beltway establishment. But I do not feel sold down the river on Clement. She looks every bit as conservative as Thomas or Scalia did.