Posted on 07/19/2005 12:25:06 PM PDT by Pokey78
An euphemisn for carnal knowledge. Coitus.
NOW will be upset no matter who GWB picks.
The Constitution is a "living document" but Supreme Court decisions are written in stone.
Who they trine ta fool?
I expect that the conservative strategy will be to nibble Roe-v-Wade to death, first by reversing Stenberg, then Casey, then Doe-v-Bolton. By that time, states will be restricting abortion only until the first trimester, when the preferred method of obtaining abortions will be pharmaceutical anyway.
Overturning Roe-v-Wade on a 5-4 vote shortly after someone like Ginsburg or Stevens retired would have such a drastic, sudden impact, that would ignite the sort of political firestorm that many cautious justices, or synical politicians, would like to avoid. On the other hand, someone like Kennedy, or a surprise moderate could even join the majority on gradually eating into abortion.
Oh, and PLEASE don't think I'm advocating for such a moderate!
That NARAL only considers Clement "worrisome" makes many of us worried. Mr. Ponnuru's statement should allay some of our worry.
So she firmly believes that the Constitution is "what the Supreme Court says it is."
This makes me nervous, too. The Constitution is what it is, not what some august body may happen to say it is. Otherwise, why have a written Constitution? (With credit to Sobran).
I do not see Roe v. Wade overturned any time soon, but in my opinion, gradually eating away at it is also an extremely rosy scenario. My prediction is grim: the state (in our case, the government on the federal and state levels) will retrench around Roe v. Wade. There will be some talk on the part of the GOP to nibble away with parental consent or street counceling rights, just enough to fool the conservative base. Little of substance will be done. Strict constructivism will miraculously come to mean support for Roe v. Wade as stare decisis.
Why? Because the state has rightly understood that keeping fundamental matters of life and death outside of the domain of natural law and in the domain of the political law is the font of power for the state. Acknowledge that the unborn has rights and all of a sudden all manner of individual rights come from under the government's grip. They are not going to allow that to happen.
Don't count on it.
What concerns me the most over Clement is that the Democrats are not having a meltdown over the suggestion that she will be the nominee.
Feelin' kinda bossy today?
Major Garrett on FOX said that it could also be Luttig.
I don't know where he got his information .. but he said people shouldn't be surprised.
He makes the point I have been making.
Her statement on settled R v W law was as a prospective appellate Judge. The issue is how she feels about 'settled' law as a Supreme. There is a critical difference.
sarcasm intended.
Some would much rather bash the President, get hysterical, and never vote again!
According to FNC, a Democratic Party memo lists "issues of concern" about Edith Clement, including "Limited Constitutional Rights," "Restricts Access to Court," "Cozy With Corporate Interests/Regular Attendee of Judicial Junkets," "Imposes Her Views Above Jury Verdicts," "Endorses Activist Courts," "Opposed Environmental Protection of Endangered Species" and "Hostile to Minority Rights."
I would add that she is solidly conservative, a strict constructionist, a Federalist Society member, and sits on the Fifth Circuit. And she was unanimously confirmed to the Fifth Circuit. The "extreme right-wing ideologue" label won't stick with her.
In sum, she sounds just about perfect.
Optimist.
I guess you haven't visited DU or Moveon.org lately! Talk about Doom & Gloom!
I'm not sure what you are saying. If you are saying that because the Supreme Court has ruled on Roe v. Wade, that is it now the law and cannot ever be changed, I don't think that is correct. In the 1890's, in the case Plessey v. Ferguson, the Court ruled that separate, but equal, schools for black and white children were constitutional. That ruling was finally struck down by Brown v. Board of Education.
That being said, I don't think we can expect to see Roe v. Wade significantly altered during my lifetime (I'm 53) but I do believe it will eventually be altered to allow each state to decide it policy on abortion.
That appears to me to be clear thinking.
They ust announced on ABC radio that Clement has been scratched from the list of nominees!
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.