It has been widely remarked that Gen. Clark is the candidate of the Clintonistas. One now begins to see why, although where Willie was slick Wes seems merely wifty. Just as the first Clinton was notoriously uncertain (or hoped that everyone else was uncertain) over the meaning of “is,” it appears that Gen. Clark is confused (or hopes everyone else is confused) over the meaning of “litmus test.”
An article today in the Washington Post entitled “Clark Tries To Shake Earlier Comments” contained the following observation:
As for abortion, Clark has said that his statement that he would not apply litmus tests to judicial nominees in no way contradicts his vow never to nominate an antiabortion judge to the country’s highest court. Instead, Clark said he would not appoint an antiabortion judge to the court because that person’s position would compromise the ability to follow the judicial precedent laid out by Roe v. Wade.
Read This UPDATE!
The more I look at Gen. Clark, the curiouser he appears. Most of you probably recall his “bobbling” the question about whether he would have supported the Congressional authorization for war when he first announced his candidacy, last September. I’ve just looked at it again, and I’m now convinced that in focusing on the “I probably would have” comment everyone missed the real news there.
Here is the report on his comment from CBS News at the time:
According to the New York Times, a moment after indicating his probable support for the war, Clark seemed to waffle on the issue.
“I don’t know if I would have or not. I’ve said it both ways because when you get into this, what happens is you have to put yourself in a position — on balance, I probably would have voted for it,” the newspaper quoted Clark as saying.
The revealing thing here is that the reason Clark is unsure of his position is that he’s “said it both ways.”
Most people decide what they think, and then they speak. Clark, it appears, isn’t sure of what he thinks until he hears what he says. Maybe that’s because the words aren’t his but his handlers’.
Apparently Clark has never heard that Courts, even the Supreme Court, often have the right (and in some cases the duty) not to follow precedent.
Or as the Supreme Court memorably began its opinion in Erie RR Co. v. Tompkins, “Today, we reverse the rule we first set forth in Swift v. Tyson…” [or words to that effect].
How would Plessy v. Ferguson have fared under a Clark-nominated SCOTUS?
Clark’s position appears to be that this is not a litmus test solely because he says it is not, regardless of the fact that it patently is.
This is very similar to his contention that he was not relieved of his NATO command.
You have to pity his former subordinates in the military, who presumably had to put up with a lot of this (and many of them seem to detest him as a result).
Slightly OT, but it’s always interesting to see that the left thinks that mere disagreement with Roe is an automatic disqualifier from the federal bench, even when antiabortion appeals court nominees promise to follow Supreme Court precedent. That’s positively breathtaking. Roe was not a unanimous decision, yet Clark is demanding strict compliance with precedent. But if disagreeing with Roe‘s precedent is a automatic disqualifier, shouldn’t disagreement with any Supreme Court decision also disqualify a judge? If not, what’s so special about Roe that it demands an elevated level of stare decisis?
Oh, and Jessie – BMC is great, but you should have gone to Swat ;)
However, the Post point seems merely an academic exercise at this point. Immediately after his interview with the Manchester Union Leader (where the original interview was done), Clark called the reporter back to “clarify” that:
Sounds like a litmus test to this humble Catholic attorney. Funny how that part didn’t make it into the Washington Post piece…
As to the accuracy of Clark’s statement, I would have to agree that he won’t be appointing pro-life judges. Any candidate stupid enough to openly state that he will discriminate against all Catholic (or other) religious judicial candidates probably won’t be appointing any judges in the end.
Maybe he is using the real meaning of a litmus test.
So he’s saying that he is not planning on sticking a piece of litmus paper on them and determine if they are an acid or a base.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/litmus
Didn’t last year’s Lawrence decision effectively overturn a previous SCOTUS ruling that was only 17 years old?
It seems to me that Clark speaks his mind honestly, only to be later corrected by his staff when he had inadvertently taken a position contrary to one he is “supposed” to take.
Frankly, I don’t think he always learns his talking points well enough to effectively obfuscate his real opinions.
Shameless linkage: Wesley Clark: Who the Hell Is He, Really, And What Does He Really Think About Anything?
From my observations, it’s not that Clark is speaking his mind honestly, it’s that he is being dishonest.
Because the positions he is taking are not his honest, reasoned beliefs, he doesn’t really know what he is saying. He’s just trying to parrot the most extreme positions of the Democratic party’s base.
Hmm, I wonder if Clark would have refused to appoint someone that wasn’t racist and therefore might not follow Dred Scott.
Precedent is not meant to be sacrosanct. The “reproductive rights” crowd has managed to carve out a small exception to that principle. Shame on the electorate for allowing it.
Clark is so ignorant that, while demanding strict adherence to Roe, he states a position (no state interest until birth) that Roe rejected.
Hmmm…
Main Entry: litmus test
Function: noun
Date: 1952
: a test in which a single factor (as an attitude, event, or fact) is decisive
So he won’t appoint a judge if he is pro-life, right? Well, that fits the dictionary definition of a litmus test perfectly.
How blatantly dishonest can you get?