LIVE THREAD: SCOTUS Nominee Watch (UPDATE: announcement at 9pm tonight)

Free Republic ^ | July 19, 2005

[Howlin]

TICK TOCK...............

Thread Two

[johnb838]

I didn't understand the lack of punctuation. Did it say that she is CATHOLIC? hehheh.

[Ol' Sparky]

Exactly. Overturning Roe will return the issue to the people and their elected representatives and out of the hands of tyrannical judges.

[Mister Baredog]

Impossible to say.

That's right and nothing will change that fact.

[conservativebabe]

Now that's one that my AI thread friends might enjoy! LOL!

[shield]

Do you have a suggestion exactly what we can do about that?

[conservativehistorian]

I agree that I am very disappointed in the president's choice, if indeed it is Clement. A cursory review of her record reveals no clue regarding her position on the crucial social issues of abortion, homosexual marriage, affirmative action, or the role of religion in society.

I fear that the president has decided to make an appointment that does not provoke controversy from the left, which translates into another disastrous republican Supreme Court choice (think Souter, O'Connor, Stevens and Kennedy).

I am disgusted.

[SolomoninSouthDakota]

"Right now, Today, Roe is settled law. That doesn't mean however, should a Different Case, with different facts come before the court that an analagous case wouldnt be decided differently."

To simple me, "settled law" sounds like "precedent" and a person would have to expect the jurists who says, "Roe is 'settled law'", would continue right down the path of the Roe v. Wade decision. Especially when the statement is coupled with the one about the right to privacy providing a constitutional guarantee to abortion.
These type of phrases, IMHO, would not be coming from someone who can be expected to reverse course on the unspeakable crime of abortion. I am getting a little sick feeling in my gut on this one.

[Steven W.]

my recollection was the influence of John Sununu

[defconw]

Yes she is Catholic, so?

[advance_copy]

When a judge says "settled law", they see it as more than just binding due to court hierarchy. It requires legislation to reverse. When "settled law" is a ruling on the Constitution by the Supreme Court, it requires an amdendment to change. I take this description from what I've heard Ken Starr say.

[RoseofTexas]

Hmmmmm...never thought of it that way...MAKES lots of sense..;)

[NathanBookman]

ok.

[johnb838]

Well, unless she is a Kerry Catholic, that says something to me. Doesn't it you?

[steveegg]

That's better than my "markets up; oil down; Dingy Harry deeply soddened" gambit (as I type, the DJIA is up 50, NASDAQ up 22, S&P up 5, and oil down .22).

[hobbes1]

I'll say it again, more slowly for you,

The "Roe is Settled Law" is one of the undignified shibboleths that conservative nominees must put up with in the name of duty.

No More, No less.

[Bogeygolfer]

Yes.

[Sandy]

devising new procedural rules that make it difficult to challenge abortion regulations in federal court

This is exactly what's at issue in the Ayotte case coming up next term. Once the Court gets rid of the Undue Burden standard of review for facial challenges and applies the Salerno "no set of circumstances" test instead, overturning Roe will become almost irrelevant.

[samantha]

I would be happy with drama queens,not reactionaries before the fact. Woof! I will wait patiently like you and relax til the announcement.

[johnb838]

What does Ken Starr have to do with anything?

[Steven W.]

A cursory review of her record reveals no clue regarding her position on the crucial social issues of abortion, homosexual marriage, affirmative action, or the role of religion in society.

Your statement shows your naivete in these regards - that is EXACTLY the kind of candidate that is appropriate ie judicial philosophy that endears one to the Federalist Society without a paper trail for the left to latch onto.

The problem with Souter was - for those who remember - he had NEITHER + he still lived with his mother (a total kook weirdo)