Here is one take on her current (and potential future) stance on abortion and why Bush may pick her because of it.
Key parts from
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2005/07/edith-clement.html
"
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."
President Bush and his advisors have a litmus test for the next Supreme Court nominee.
But it's not the litmus test you are thinking of.
Liberals and Democrats alike are worried that the President will nominate someone who will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. They needn't worry. That's not likely to happen. In fact, the only litmus test the President is likely to employ is whether a candidate promises *not* to overturn Roe. Here's why.
Bush must decide if he wants to overturn Roe or preserve the Republicans as the majority party. With Roe gone, the pro-choice movement will be energized and Republican politicians will have to state on the record whether they want to criminalize abortion. Women, libertarians, and moderates may bolt the party, destroying Bush's winning coalition. Republicans may dislike Roe, but they may dislike losing elections even more.
A far more prudent strategy, and the one the President and his advisors will likely adopt, would be to appoint Justices who will preserve Roe but chip away at it slowly, for example, by devising new procedural rules that make it difficult to challenge abortion regulations in federal court, by upholding restrictions on particular medical procedures like partial birth abortion, and by further limiting abortions for minors and poor women.
"
(he continues with more at the link about)
People who want everything, now, just do not understand the politics not just of the Court, but of the Congress, the Presidency, all the way down to electing a Dogcatcher in Dover, Delaware.
Congressman Billybob
Wrong on several accounts:
First, this pick, or the next one, isnot going to be 5th vote to overturn Roe v Wade.
Second, Roe v Wade will be nibbled to death, not reversed in a 180-degree turnaround.
Third, Clement was asked if she thought the constitution included a right to abortion. She pointedly dodged the question, and instead answered that the U.S. Supreme Court said it did, and that [AS A JUDGE ON AN INFERIOR COURT,] she would uphold the Supreme Court's decision.
Fourth, I've heard your political calculus before. I believe it to be wrong. The Catholic CHurch is filled of tens of millions of liberal voters who rationalize that the Democrats they vote for have no say on abortion. I don't hear a lot of pro-choice Republicans left anymore; the Clinton Republicans did NOT come back.
That's the biggest bunch of nonsense I've ever read. The number of people calling themselves pro-life has dramatically increased over the past 10 years and is one of the reasons the Republicans are in the majority. Without a motivated base of social conservatives, the Republican party will be devastated at the ballot box because social conservatives don't like to be lied to.
Futher, overturning Roe merely returns the power to the people. The VAST majority of the people want more restrictions on abortion and, in some states, want abortion for convenience sake outlawed. THAT will motivate the Republican base and in be GOOD for the Republican party, giving it an majority for a generation.
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.