The sudden buzz since late last night is Edith Clement for the Supreme Court. What should prolifers think of that?
Well, my sources in Washington tell me she went a lot farther, in testimony before being confirmed a federal judge, in describing Roe v. Wade as "settled" law, and in affirming a constitutional "privacy" right.
Meanwhile, observers scanning for a sign pointing to antipathy to Roe so far find nothing.
The term "stealth candidate" is being used about Clement.
It must be recalled...exactly the same thing they said about David Souter.
Let me recall a prediction I made . . . hmmm . . .
well, it appears I didn't make it here, but rather posting at Amy Wellborn's Open Book . . . and you'll just have to take my word for it:
Here's what I said: what if the talk of Gonzales was all a stalking-horse? I.e., get prolifers in a froth, fearing Gonzales, seeing him as "the worst" -- then, when he gets pulled back, they'll be so relieved, they give a lot less scrutiny, let alone criticism, of the eventual pick.
Hmmm . . . could be what's about to happen.
Of course, the Clement rumor may be wrong.
Which raises the question: where is it coming from? Why would the White House float a rumor involving a less controversial choice, only to follow with a more controversial one?
Basically, the White House wouldn't do that.
Who would?
Only one answer: someone within the GOP trying to force the choice in this direction. So SPECulate To yER heart's content about who that might be...
No comments:
Post a Comment