Richardson would use support of Roe V Wade as a litmus test.

[seasat]

I thought it was interesting that he would come out and state so bluntly. Most Democratic and Republican candidates hint at this by using indirect statements such like I would appoint a nominee that favors women's rights or on the Repub side, I support strict constructionist judges. Richardson stated this:

"I know that I am going to upset some people," Richardson said. "I would say, 'Do you believe Roe v. Wade is settled law?' and if they say, 'Yes,' they have a good chance of being picked. If they say 'No,' I will not pick them."
...
Presidents must use particular care in selecting Supreme Court nominees because they have the potential to shape legal policy for generations, he added.

"That is the biggest legacy of a president, and we are already paying for the Bush legacy in these last few decisions on privacy and choice with this Supreme Court," Richardson said. "It is 5-4 almost automatically. When I am president, I am going to restore habeas corpus. We are going to shut down Guantanamo Bay. We are going to say that we are for civil rights and affirmative action, and ... we are a nation that is not going to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation."

[0xDEADBEEF]

1. Litmus Test

Oh no! An honest politician? DUCK!!!!!!!!

I don't plan on ever having an abortion (or more realistically, *causing* one), and I have no intention of marrying a man, but I certainly use abortion and gay marriage as a litmus test for my vote.

The people who oppose both seldom represent me very well on any other issues.

[Strawman]

2. Good

That's what I like to hear.

[Warpy]

3. Richardson is looking more and more like a Democrat

For the first couple of years as governor he looked like a typical DLC drone with delusions of grandeur.

I hope we the people of NM have managed to slap him around enough and help turn him back into a Democrat. If he stays the way he's been for the last couple of years, he's certainly on the right track.

We could do a whole lot worse. We've done worse. Hell, we're doing worse.

[polichick]

7. He does seem to be singin' a different tune...

I guess a big thank-you to you and your fellow citizens is in order! :applause:

[Deep13]

4. Good. He ought to. The Rs have not problem doing so. nt

[Hawaii Hiker]

5. Exactly, but what the Republicans do is mask it

under the bull-shit term "STRICT CONSTRUCTIONISTS", which translated means justices who will rule on an issue that favors the right...

Make no mistake, Republicans have a litmus test, they just use different terminology.....

[Independent Democrat]

6. Richardson just needs to work on his image..........

He needs to start knocking the ball out of the park at some of these debates to be considered seriously.

[Deep13]

8. true nt

[CaliforniaPeggy]

9. Good for him, to state it so bluntly!

I have more and more respect for him when I hear statements like this one...

I wish he had a chance against the top-ranked candidates.....

We really need people who are unafraid to speak their minds!

ETA: K&R

[Adelante]

10. Good for the Gov!

:thumbsup:

[ThomCat]

11. That's a damned good position to take.

I don't want to vote for anyone who WON'T use Row v Wade as a litmus test. I want to the anti-choicers OUT of government. x(

[rucky]

12. WOW

huevos mas grande, Senor Richardson!

:headbang: :yourock:
:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

[Prophet 451]

13. Shouldn't be a litmus test

Don't misunderstand me, I'm a supporter of Roe but I think making any single case into a litmus test is overly simplistic.

[JerseygirlCT]

16. Here's where I disagree -- this, like other civil rights issues,

ought to be absolute baseline.

If you in favor of reinstituting segregation, should anyone take you seriously for a judicial position?

Likewise, if you believe that a woman's right to make her own medical decisions concerning her own body isn't settled law, I don't think you should be taken seriously, period.

[Prophet 451]

17. I'm unsure here

Thing is, neither segregation nor abortion-rights rests on one case. While something about individual cases might capture the imagination, the actual law involved built on previous legal principles and was used to build further principles. Thus, you couldn't overturn that individual case without overturning huge swatches of other cases involved with it (Bush Vs. Gore aside and if ever an indicator of bias was obvious, there it is).

Also, I'm not sure where the concept of "settled law" got started but there's no such thing. There are settled legal principles, certainly, but the law is in constant flux, never entirely settled.

[JerseygirlCT]

18. I agree with your last point, but I continue to believe that there are

simply principles so fundamental to individual liberties and civil rights that any judicial nominee should fairly be expected to adhere to them.

I understand the GOP sees things differently. While campaign finance reform is a governmental interference horror, there's no worry about such interference in a women's bodily integrity.

But I don't see why the Democrats cannot simply say: these are things we hold to be fundamental.

[many a good man]

14. Act of desperation

Bump in the primaries but poison in the general. He'll get creamed for supporting a litmus test. Methinks Richardson jumped the shark.

[JerseygirlCT]

15. Now THAT'S refreshing! nt