RIGHTWINGSPARKLE

The speculation is that the Supreme court nominee will be Judge Edith Clement of the U.S. Court of Appeals in New Orleans. Known as a conservative and a strict constructionist, but 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 am sure there will be an uproar in the Christian community over that. But look at the sentence carefully. Yes, the Supreme Court has held the right of privacy includes the right to abortion and the law is settled. (for now) She is simply stating a fact.

I am not saying she is pro-life or pro-choice. I have no idea. I just feel it will be counter productive for the right to go after her for that sentence. Let's face it. If she had ever said anything that even came close to saying she is leaning pro-life, the left would skewer her. Everyone knows it. Look what they did to Clarence Thomas???? The atmosphere is even worse now. If you read the link you will see that even that statement of Judge Clement is not enough for NARAL.

If and when Roe v. Wade is overturned (and I don't see that happening no matter who Bush appoints) all that will do, as most of you know, is leave it up to the states to legalize or regulate abortions. To me that means more of a real debate. Which is something the people never got to decide. 9 men did.

After 35 yrs of legal abortion, the debate rages on. Isn't it ridiculous that of all the laws the Supreme Court decides, this is the one that basically determines a Supreme Court judge. Perhaps if it were in the hands of the people we could get back to other matters in deciding who is a judge.

UPDATE: All the news organizations are saying it isn't going to be her. We shall see.