Asymmetrical Information

She's rumored to be a constructionist otherwise... maybe half a loaf is better than none in this case.

It depends on what she means by "settled law". Brown v. Board of Education overturned settled law. It's one thing for an appellate court judge to follow Supreme Court precedent (no matter how flawed the Supreme Court's decision may have been); it's another for a Supreme Court Justice to reject the notion that precedent is more important than the Constitution itself. The two positions are not incompatible. Nor is it uncommon for a "strict constructionist" to hold both views.

"Settled law" is merely generally-accepted law, not good law or right law. Saying that doesn't mean anything, especially when, like McConnell, you've written articles about how horrible the decision was.

Highly second Mr. Walser's comments. There's a substantial difference between not being willing to overturn obvious Supreme Court precedent, and ruling the same way on the Court. She could mean either.

One can recall also how John Ashcroft swore to uphold Roe et cetera in his confirmation hearings.

Democratic Senators basically always ask the "will you uphold Supreme Court precedent as it relates to abortion" question of pretty much anyone relevant. For an appeals court judge, it's not a difficult answer, either. (Mostly it serves to confuse the issue for if/when the same people get appointed to the Supreme Court, I'd imagine.)

Judge Bill Pryor is another example-- he was ask the same question (roughly) when he was appointed, and he too promised to follow Supreme Court precedent.

I've read Clement's actual answer. It simply says that the Supreme Court has held that the right to privacy includes abortion, and that she has an obligation to follow the Supreme Court's decisions as a federal appellate judge. It makes her someone who takes her oath of office seriously, rather than pro- or anti-Roe.

As far as I can tell, the "settled law" line was used by most of Bush's nominees, if asked. John Ashcroft, Michael McConnell, John Roberts, and Miguel Estrada are among those who used that precise phrase.

But sources said a White House official called her to inform her that Bush had chosen someone else.

Huh? did the article change?

It's one thing for an appellate court judge to follow Supreme Court precedent (no matter how flawed the Supreme Court's decision may have been); it's another for a Supreme Court Justice to reject the notion that precedent is more important than pen the Constitution itself. The two positions are not incompatible. Nor is it uncommon for a "strict constructionist" to hold both views.

Comments are Closed.