Posted on 07/19/2005 12:25:06 PM PDT by Pokey78
Simply means that Clement is double-talking like Clinton, and the FR lemmings are falling for it.
Seems like a glaring contradiction to me...
No, I'm beginning to believe they actually like twisted panties. It's part of the looniness. Nothing, no one, no place, no time, no day, no way. There is always something that just deeply concerns and saddens them. Enough so that they feel compelled to share the doom that invades their lives like fog on the moors. Listen carefully to the sounds in the fog. Those aren't crickets. That's The Doom and Gloom Symphony warming up.
No one has nominated her for the SCOTUS and it looks like the chicken little lemmings at FR are falling for it.
The Post quote comes from the 5th Circuit confirmation hearing. The answer is virtually identical to how Scalia and Thomas answered similar questions during their confirmation hearings. It's also not double-talking, but 100% correct in the terms that an appelate court judge has no authority to overturn the USSC. It gives no indication how she will rule.
However, the fact that she is known in the legal community as a strict constructionist is a very, very good sign. The biggest question is where she stands with regards to precedent? Is she closer to Scalia or to Thomas? From what I've seen so far (and I've only seen the surface to be sure), she looks very much in the Clarence Thomas mold.
I wouldn't count on it. But really, I like our "loonier members." After all, Free Republic is about the only place I can say that Reagan was the best President ever, that Jesse Helms was the best Senator ever, that the inheritance tax should be eliminated, that the IRS should be eliminated in favor of a national sales tax, and that affirmative action should end immediately -- and still be considered a person of sane, moderate views.
I'm not concerned about that particular comment. However, I am concerned at the apparent lack of any track record. I'd rather Bush opt for someone with a demonstrated originalist stance than a relative unknown.
In my strong opinion, if we get conservative justices who do not "go south" on legislating from the bench, there will not be future Roe V. Wades. That would be very good.
In all honesty, stare decisis may still figure into the decision for even originalists to absolutely vote to overturn Roe v. Wade should that opportunity arise. But what you have to do is firmly establish originalism, and that will create the climate allowing the overturning of older cases that were rank legislating from the bench like Roe.
I daresay some of those same members would brand you a "moderate sellout" were you ever to be nominated for a judgeship. ;-)
Does everyone remember the last time such a nominee was put forward?
Hint: it was in 1990.
I hope Clement is not the nominee.
you are right, but saying "There is no right to privacy in the Constitution" even though it is true makes ignorant masses really nervous and it makes for good moveon.org ad soundbites. I like to joke that the right to an abortion is right under the right to privacy in the bill of rights ... and many people dont get it.
It could be Sandra Day-O all over again.
Well, NOW is upset with her possible nomination and already has their brooms out against her.
Bttt! Thank you for posting this bit of sanity.
Excuse me for not knowing, but what does "bump" mean? I am new here.
How is there NOT a right to privacy?
How can you possibly imagine that such a right is not "self-evident" within the meaning of that term in the Declaration of Independence?
How can a free society exist where the government does not recognize such a right?
What do you think the Ninth Amendment means?
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
I'll be interested in knowing what you think about why the founders included that amendment in the Bill of Rights, and what meaning you think it could possibly have other than we have other unenumerated rights.
What support do you have for your apparent position that our Consitutional rights are limited to those explicitly enumerated in that document?
Opposition to Roe v. Wade does not require the erroneous argument that there is no right to privacy in the constitution.
The ninth amendment clearly suggest that there is one, and it is impossible to imagine a truly free society that does not recognize such a right.
Moreover, the 3rd, 4th, and 5th Amendments clearly presume the right to individual privacy
The fact is that the right to privacy is irrelevant to the abortion question. And that is the principal error of Roe v. Wade. A better use for the right to privacy argument would be to limit the federal government's powers to impose the onerous and intrusive reporting requirements of the Income Tax system.
I think the right to privacy would be a natural argument to overturn the constitutionality of the IRS regulations as they are written. (Yes, I accept that for better or worse the 16th Amendment allows the government to collect taxes on incomes. But it does not automatically follow that implementation of that power entitles the government to trample our privacy rights in the process.)
Yep. Or, to be fair, it could be another Scalia/Thomas. The problem is that we can't afford even the slightest chance of a moderate or liberal, and that's what comes with the unknown.
Actually, Amendments #3, #4, #5, and #9 all presuppose a right to privacy. That has nothing at all to do with abortion, of course, despite where a rogue court declared cold-blooded murder "privacy".
Edith Brown Clement: Known as a "conservative who flies under the radar," [17] Edith Brown Clement is a worrisome choice for the United States Supreme Court. Judge Clement, appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit by President Bush in 2001, has not directly dealt with the right to choose while on the bench or in private practice. However, she has been an active member of the Federalist Society for Law and Policy Studies, a conservative organization with many prominent anti-choice leaders and members. [18]
I'll bet they don't get it! You and I both know that the right to privacy is in the same article that has the separation of church and state.
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.