Posted on 07/19/2005 12:25:06 PM PDT by Pokey78
The Washington Post reported earlier (I can't find the link) on Edith Brown Clement: "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.'"
I don't believe for a minute that these statements have "eased fears" among anyone in the abortion-rights groups, and they shouldn't inspire fears among pro-lifers--which, judging from some of the blog commentaries and emails I've been reading, they are. That is precisely the stance that an appeals-court judge has to take, and it says nothing about how that judge would rule if she were on the Supreme Court. Indeed, if an appeals-court nominee didn't say something like that before the Senate, she wouldn't get confirmed. So for pro-lifers to demand that Supreme Court nominees never have made such statements is self-defeating: It means that almost everyone on the bench would have to be wiped off the list of Supreme Court hopefuls. No anti-Roe justice would be able to rise through the ranks.
Even Bill Pryor, who said Roe was an abomination, rightly promised to accept the authority of the Supreme Court over the lower courts in this matter.
There may be a case against Clement, but this isn't it.
Bump
Maybe this will untwist the panties of some of our loonier members for now.
Ping!
Thank you
Once on the court, she had the right to interpreter the law.
[snip]
That is precisely the stance that an appeals-court judge has to take, and it says nothing about how that judge would rule if she were on the Supreme Court.
It makes me damn nervous. I'd be happier with a judge who said "Roe is an abomination. There is no right to privacy in the Constitution. That ruling was made up for political purposes by activist judges."
Anyone who said that would have my support. This woman does not have my support.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Hey it worked for Ginsburg.
LOL! Don't be silly.
Slap yourself..
doubtful, but we can always hope.
We should start a thread to vow to leave Free Republic IF....to match their numerous times they've vowed to leave the Republican party.
Guess you're right. Some folks are just bound and determined to piss in the punchbowl at all costs.
Excuse me for not knowing, but what does "bump" mean? I am new here.
I've already pointed one of them here, for all the good it will do.
"BUMP" means the article goes back up to the top of the list of articles in the main window. Even simply responding to another poster will do the same.
What's that supposed to mean?
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.