Check out the latest bit of extremism from another unviable candidate:
Democrat Wesley Clark said yesterday he would never appoint a pro-life judge to the federal bench because the judge
Reader Interactions
19Comments
Comments are closed.
Trackbacks
-
CLARK: JUDICIAL EXTREMIST?
is the mom’s alone” href=”http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=31260″>The Union Leader has an interview with Wesley Clark that demonstrates either that he has never given much thought to judicial…
-
Wes Clark’s Life Began With His Mother’s Decision
Gen. Wesley Clark is supposed the anti-Dean in this race: more moderate, more knowledgeable about foreign affairs, but darned if he’s not taking the most far left public position on abortion of all the Democrats running: MANCHESTER — Democrat Wes…
-
Meanwhile, back at the Ranch…
… Wesley Clark gives his campaign manager heartburn, ulcers and a coronary. Clark: Abortion decision is the mom’s alone Democrat Wesley Clark said yesterday he would never appoint a pro-life judge to the federal bench because the judge’s anti-abort…
Moe Lane
You’ve got to be kidding me.
Gregory Litchfield
The rest if the article is pretty disturbing stuff. Clark states that under no circumstances will he ever appoint a pro-life judge to a federal bench. Period. Apparently, being pro-life renders one incapable of making rational decisions based on precedence.
I happen to be pro-choice (or pro-abortion, whatever) myself, but I am at a loss here. Is Clark really stating that pro-life judges are completely incapable of seperating their beliefs from their duties? It seems to be the case.
With condescending views like that, I wonder how this guy intends to won over the votes of “flyover country” types, who generally are more pro-life than not.
mark
Until the moment of birth? Talk about extreme – even for mainstream pro-choicers.
I also find it amazing that he thinks a pro-life judge cannot possibly follow Roe v. Wade. I guess that means Clark cannot appoint any member of the ACLU to the bench, either, since that judge could not possibly follow the laws regarding the death penalty.
Kimmitt
General Clark is a brilliant, accomplished man, but he has not yet acquired the political skills necessary to successfully run for President of the United States.
He’d still make a pretty damn good VP candidate and I’d trust him to take over the Presidency if necessary.
Steve Malynn
Kimmitt, trust me, all generals are accomplished, some generals are self serving climbers, but to become a general you have to have political skills out the wazoo. Clark makes my military skin crawl (of course, that has been my feeling about 1/2 of the generals I’ve ever met).
Ricky
You’re surprised?
This is a guy – who while running for president – felt it was pertinent to state for the record that a television network should fire someone for the opinion they expressed on the air.
Terry
I keep hoping that retired Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Shelton, will go public with all that he has on Clark, including ALL of the factors involved in Clark’s firing. The little that he has publically stated is pretty devastating, including comments on Clark’s “lack of character and integrity.” A reporter at the Boston Globe has intimated that the Dean campaign is trying to get some of Clark’s “problems” into the light of day.
Gregory Litchfield
Terry – Yeah, I’d like to hear what else Shelton has to say as well. Clark doesn’t strike me as a particularly trustworthy sort of man, and his attempt at starting WWIII with the Russians at Pristina doesn’t help.
I really respect Shelton, but I thought his comments were beneath him. He intimated that Clark has some unforgivable character issues, but never actually stated what they were. It’s a form of personal atack that is really impossible to defend against. You slander someone, claim that they can’t be trusted, but never give any specifics, and when prompted to you pretend to take the high road by keeping mum. In effect, you sow the seeds of doubt, without ever actually having to offer any sort of argument.
I still can’t figure out why it is that people like Oliver Willis are forever drooling over candidates like Clark. Clark is merely an empty uniform. Clark is a decorated hero, sure. Yet his own subordinates in the Balkans despised him, the man has a record of being a hothead and he’s a condescending prick to boot. Why is it that Democrats have this penchant for choosing McClellan for their military nominees, when what they should be going for are Eisenhowers?
I suspect the almost total ignorance of many Dems. on issues of national defense has something to do with this.
Charley Foster
Following the same logic, Clark should never appoint a judge with Clark’s own views because the belief that the government has no role whatsoever 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).
Andrew Lazarus
I seem to recall Eugene Volokh as pointing out: for lower court appointments, you just want a judge who understands stare decisis. Clark’s position makes more sense for the *Supreme Court*, since a pro-life appointment could result in a complete reversal of precedent.
Oh, has GWB appointed a pro-choice judge AT ANY LEVEL? Original Iraq Viceroy Jay Garner reported that at the last minute the Administration pulled all pro-choice doctors FROM HIS CIVILIAN MEDICAL TEAM.
John Cole
Andrew- How did you manage to turn this into an attack on George Bush?
At any rate, if you want to go on record stating that you think it is worse that George Bush is against abortion than Wes Clark, who is now on the record stating that there is no abortion he would not support, so be it. Personally, even though I am pro-choice, I respect Bush’s principled opposition to abortion while I find Clark’s position downright appalling.
M. Scott Eiland
In fairness, Clark’s position isn’t as extreme as those of some pro-choice groups, who oppose granting a fetus legal protection even in cases where the mother *has* chosen to give birth, and a third party kills or harms the fetus afterwards. It’s still pretty nutty, though–and I say this as someone who is pro-choice.
S.W. Anderson
Like it or not, inevitably, the pregnant woman who’s desperate and/or determined to have her way will have her way. Make abortion illegal and she will go to a back-alley abortionist.
The record is as clear as it is tragic in all respects: making abortion illegal simply makes for illegal abortions. It never has stopped women from getting an abortion and it never will.
So, in a real and pragmatic sense, what Clark said is right on the mark — life begins with the mother’s decision.
That a person acknowledges this doesn’t mean he or she favors abortions of convenience or considers human life anything less than precious and a gift from God.
Credit Clark with having the savvy and good sense to recognize the reality, and the candor to say what it is.
Savvy, good sense and candor are so much better traits in a leader than ignorance, dogma and spin.
M. Scott Eiland
“Like it or not, inevitably, the pregnant woman who’s desperate and/or determined to have her way will have her way. Make abortion illegal and she will go to a back-alley abortionist.”
Like it or not, a blackmail victim who’s desperate and/or determined to get rid of the blackmailer will have his or her way, and shoot the SOB. Make it illegal and they’ll just hire some thick-necked guy in a dark suit to do it.
There are any number of good arguments for the pro-choice position, but the “they’ll do it anyway” argument is deeply lame.
S.W. Anderson
Honest people can make interesting arguments ad infinitum based on what you put forth as a parallel.
Rather than go down that path here, I’ll just suggest you presume too much. If you’ll go back and read my comment with a little more care, I’m sure you’ll realize I wasn’t making a pro choice argument.
CleverNameHere
SW, I disagree. I a very real and pragmatic way, life ENDS with the mother’s decision to abort. Life does not BEGIN with her decsion NOT to abort.
The biological fact is that the fetus is alive. And as a LEGAL matter, life doesn’t even begin with a mother’s choice, because she can change her mind and opt for an abortion.
I can understand stretching to give Clark the benefit of the doubt, imputing deep meaning to his pandering, but in the very next breaths he claims that pro-life judges are incapable of following precedent, and by implied contrast that pro-choice judges are incapable of disregarding precedent.
And I haven’t even mentioned the “non litmust test litmus test”.
And to address the “she’ll get the abortion anyway”, “illegal abortion has never stopped a woman from getting an abortion and never will” you are clearly wrong as to the facts. The number of abortions exploded after Roe; far more women obtained abortions than even the most liberal estimates indicated prior to Roe.