[michaelt]

Bump

[TheBigB]

Maybe this will untwist the panties of some of our loonier members for now.

[TheBigB]

Ping!

[minus_273]

msnbc has it too

[mware]

That is my take on it too. If Row Wade is established law, (unfortunately it is) than all judges under the SCOTUS must make rulings using that as a basic.

Once on the court, she had the right to interpreter the law.

[ClearCase_guy]

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.'"

[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.

[goldstategop]

I agree. I don't think we should be concerned with how a judge will rule on a particular case. We should focus more on the judge's overall philosophy and method of interpreting the law. While we can't secure a guaranteed vote, we can get a judge who won't be an activist on the bench. That's the important consideration.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[Mike Darancette]

As I said earlier.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Nice to see people here putting politics above life.

[frogjerk]

"Known as a conservative and a strict constructionist in legal circles, Clement also has eased fears among abortion-rights advocates.

Seems like a glaring contradiction to me...

[NittanyLion]

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.

[NutCrackerBoy]

I endorse Mr. Ponnuru's statement whole-heartedly. We need to maintain a strong coalition between fervent prolifers and Constitutionalists (not that the union of those two sets is overwhelmingly larger than its intersection). There is danger of a break if the first group is spooked by pro forma language.

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.

[B Knotts]

We don't know who the nominee will be yet, for sure. But Ranesh is wrong that this information doesn't make the case against Clement. It does, by the apparent lack of any such statements or writings in favor or against Roe.

Does everyone remember the last time such a nominee was put forward?

Hint: it was in 1990.

I hope Clement is not the nominee.

[proud American in Canada]

Indeed, if an appeals-court nominee didn't say something like that before the Senate, she wouldn't get confirmed.

Bttt! Thank you for posting this bit of sanity.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

The Constitution is a "living document" but Supreme Court decisions are written in stone.
Who they trine ta fool?

[dangus]

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.

[kennedy]

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.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Feelin' kinda bossy today?

[CyberAnt]

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.

[Soul Seeker]

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.