CLARK: JUDICIAL EXTREMIST?

John Cole)

FILED UNDER: Campaign 2004
James Joyner
About James Joyner
James Joyner is Professor and Department Head of Security Studies at Marine Corps University's Command and Staff College and a nonresident senior fellow at the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security at the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm vet. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.

Comments

  1. Paul says:

    Well, so much for him being able to win the general election.

    That’s over.

  2. mark says:

    “I just want good, solid people with judicial temperament who respect the process of law that we have in America.”

    It is strange on how the supposed judicial temperament card only applies to those with conservative views. If applied to liberals as well, perhaps the ninth curcuit would not be full of so many nutcases.

  3. Charley Foster says:

    Following his own logic, Clark should never appoint a judge with Clark’s views because the belief that the government has no role whatsover in regulating abortion would “render such a judge unable to follow the established precedent of Roe v Wade” (which, after all, recognized state interests in regulating abortion under some circumstances).

  4. All this just goes to show that Clark is a lightweight. He is no thinker, just a soldier whose main activity in his military career, like all good officers, was to take orders. Putting a guy like this in charge of the White House would be a disaster. As Bush 41 said (roughly) at one of the debates with Clinton, “There’s no call waiting at the White House.” At least Dean, a doctor, is used to being his own man and making his own decisions.

  5. Paul says:

    I think the bigger quote is being overlooked. His statement is pretty unambiguous that he supports abortion on demand any time any place. (including after the mother is in labor!)

    If, by some miracle, he won the primary, the general election would NOT be about terrorism or the economy et al. the race would be dominated by the abortion issue.

    Nobody that admits to his beliefs will be elected in this country.

    Clark may as well resign from the race. It’s over for him.

    In fact this gaff was so large I’m actually wondering if he wanted out of the race and decided this was how he would do it.

  6. It is surely possible to admit to one’s beliefs and get elected. Whether it is possible to admit that one’s beliefs include the belief in the right to commit infanticide and still get elected is quite another thing.

  7. bryan says:

    I agree with you James, why is Roe v. Wade the one SCOTUS decision that is inviolable in terms of precendent? The SCs revise precedent all the time. They just don’t like to admit it.

  8. melvin toast says:

    FYI, the Roe vs. Wade decision was based on a right to privacy argument. Seemingly, and I’m not clear on why it isn’t, one could claim right to privacy concerning drug possession, seat belts, incest, gun possession.. the list goes on ad infinitum. One doesn’t not have to be pro-life to disagree with that decision.

    Furthermore, overturning Roe vs. Wade doesn’t make abortion illegal. It just wouldn’t be constitutionally protected. States could repeal their anti-abortion laws. Many states either repealed or never had anti-abortion laws before Roe vs. Wade

  9. Paul says:

    Thanks Michael, that was poor wording.

    I had two different ways to phrase that line in my head and rather than choose one, I combined both and mangled what I was trying to say.

    P

  10. poputonian says:

    I think you folks are reading it wrong. Clark is simply saying no activist judges should be nominated, and that the rule of law is paramount. He did not say the constitution can never change, he said only judges with good judicial temperment should be allowed to consider what to change.