Did Clark really say...

[isbister]

"Judges who reach beyond precedent in either direction overstep their duties"?

CNN

[SahaleArm]

1. It's not in quotes in the article n/t

[TomNickell]

2. In the current climate,

it's a reasonable position.

He's accepting the validity of existing law, allowing for further changes through interpretation.

The Federalist Society nuts would throw out established decisions in favor of their own ideology.

[Cheswick2.0]

5. It just sounds conservative to me

How is precedent made if not by judges? I am starting to understand why Clark is kept from speaking in debates, he keeps displaying his true roots.

[SahaleArm]

8. Overstepping precendent is different from making precedent...

where none exists. That of course was never part of the context of his reply, but thanks for playing.

[Cheswick2.0]

3. here is my favorite part

Clark, who has said he opposes the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy for homosexuals, also said he was unaware of the military's policy against gays until he was confronted with a case as a commander.

"It had just never come up to me," he said. "I'd been in the Army almost 15 years, never seen this, it wasn't an issue as far as I was concerned."

To me this sounds like bush saying that he never discussed Viet Nam in college in the 60s. I don't believe him.

[SahaleArm]

6. Whatever he said you wouldn't believe him - drop the charade n/t

[JI7]

4. is that a bad thing ?

?

[wyldwolf]

7. Oh, dear! Clark shows his non-partisan spirit again! (New info added)

Let's see. If a judge is obviously a rightwing wacko or a militant leftwing purist, they'll have no place as judges if Clark is elected.

Sounds like he wants unbiased non-political judges. The way judges should be.

For those paying attention, full article quote:

On judicial appointments, Clark said he would nominate judges who respect precedent, including the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion.

Judges who reach beyond precedent in either direction overstep their duties, Clark said.

"You don't suddenly reach over here and say, 'Hey, we're going to pull this in.' That's for the legislative branch to do."

But let's delve deeper into what he was referring to:

Clark told the New Hampshire newspaper that he would never appoint a pro-life judge to any federal court because the appointee wouldn't be able to follow the precedent of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion

http://www.prolife.org/nat268.html

Democratic presidential candidate and retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark on Wednesday in an interview with the Manchester Union Leader said that he would not appoint abortion-rights opponents to federal judicial seats. Although Clark said he would not use a "litmus test" for nominating judges, he said that abortion-rights opponents would not be able to follow the "established judicial precedent" of the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, according to the Union Leader. "I don't believe people whose ideological agenda is to burn the law or remake the law or reshape it should be appointed whether they are from either side," Clark said.

http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=21567

So, just WHERE is your problem with this?

I predict this thread will die a quick death or some Dems here will really show their true colors.

[cornermouse]

9. We know what Kerry's voting record is

and its the reason why he won't get my vote.

[FrenchieCat]

10. Well,

we know the Kerry's IWR vote...that's the one that sunk him. Dean pounded on that all summer.....

So now, we still have to get someone out against Bush that can actually beat him!

[cornermouse]

11. Agreed.

[imhotep]

12. Clark needs to get out of the party

since he doesn't understand why there are parties.

[deminflorida]

13. Soon as we're finished kicking Dean out of the election....

and send his supporters running back to Nader...then we'll teach you how a party WINS an election against the GOP. Get your notebook out and be in class on time.

[SahaleArm]

15. I'd laugh if it weren't true n/t

[wyldwolf]

14. ideology before country? Party before country?

There is very little difference between the far right and the far left. You just proved it again.

[Moderator]

16. Locking

I think it is really not appropriate to start threads like this:

"Did Candidate X really (insert inflammatory thing here)?"

Now, I understand that sometimes people are actually looking for information. However, most of the time when someone does this, it doesn't appear that they are looking for information at all. They're just trying to find a sneaky way to make a rude claim about a candidate without providing any supporting evidence or context.

Also, the link provided doesn't actually include that quote.

Thanks
DU Moderator