Edith Brown Clements Best Choice For Supreme Court (Vanity Posting)

July 4, 2005 | me

[Clintonfatigued]

All of the potential candidates to succeed Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Conner would make good choices. But the best possible choice, politically as well as judicially, is Judge Edith Brown Clements of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. She's a very respected and experienced juror (10 years as a Federal District Judge before her appointment to her current position). Also, the fact that she's female will somewhat disarm the gender quota crowd. And, most importantly of all, she appears to be quite conservative but SHE DOESN'T HAVE AN EXTENSIVE PAPER TRAIL FOR 'RATS TO DISTORT!

As far as I can see, nominating her would be all gain and no loss.

[Kay]

Do you have a picture & bio?

[Clintonfatigued]

Here's a bio from 2001, just before she was appointed to the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals:

http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/clementbio.htm

[Kay]

Thanks.

Hannity had a opening "teaser" segment where there was a slender woman with shortish hair. She was walking and had a comfortable, pleasant look about her. I didn't see the rest of the program. Wonder if that was Edith.

[Rippersnapper]

Edith Brown Clement

Age: 57
Graduated from: Tulane Law School.
She clerked for: Judge Herbert W. Christenberry.
She used to be: a judge on the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana.
She's now: a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5^th Circuit (appointed 2001).

Her confirmation battle: Clement doesn't provide much ammunition for opposition groups, but perhaps not much for conservatives to get excited about either. She hasn't written anything notable off the bench (or at least nothing that's come to light yet), and most of her judicial decisions have been in relatively routine and uncontroversial cases.

Civil Rights and Liberties
For a unanimous panel, allowed a plaintiff who sued the police for violating his right to due process to proceed with his claim that the officers who arrested him used excessive force when they allegedly injured him by slamming the door of their car against his head. Reversed the district court's finding that the plaintiff could also sue for unlawful arrest and excessive force involving the use of handcuffs. (Tarver v. City of Edna, 2005)

Environmental Protection and Property Rights
Voted for the 5^th Circuit to rehear a decision blocking developers from building on a site where six endangered bug species lived in a cluster of limestone caves. Clement joined a dissent that argued that the decision's rationale for protecting the bugs—to preserve the interdependent web of species—bore no relationship to Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce. (GDF Realty Investments v. Norton, 2004)

Criminal Law
For a unanimous panel, rejected the claim of a man flying to Nigeria that his luggage was unlawfully searched at the border. Clement ruled broadly that customs inspectors need not have probable cause to search the bags of people who are leaving the country. (U.S. v. Odutayo, 2005)

Agreed with a unanimous panel that an asylum applicant who was 20 minutes late to a hearing because he'd taken the wrong highway exit should not have been ordered deported in absentia and was entitled to a new hearing. (Alarcon-Chavez v. Gonzales, 2005)

Habeas Corpus
Over a dissent, ruled that a death-row inmate who claimed to be mentally retarded was entitled to a lawyer to develop that claim in a habeas petition. Clement's ruling followed the Supreme Court's 2002 decision barring the execution of the mentally retarded. She followed up with a second opinion that limited the significance of her ruling by stating "this is a fact-bound case." (Hearn v. Dretke, 2004)

For a unanimous panel, reversed a decision of the district court finding that a police officer convicted of civil rights violation, for hitting a drunk suspect in the head with his baton, was entitled to a new trial because his lawyer was ineffective. The officer argued that his lawyer erred by failing to call character witnesses to rebut testimony that he'd complained about the need to control Mexicans in the United States. Clement said the rebuttal evidence would have been irrelevant because the officer was not charged with a hate crime. (U.S. v. Harris, 2005)

Damage Awards
Over a partial dissent, in reviewing a jury verdict in favor of a man whose wife and 3-year-old daughter were killed in a car crash, affirmed damage awards of $1.9 million for the man's loss of his wife and $1.5 million for the loss of his daughter. Reduced from $200,000 to $30,000 an award to the wife's estate for her pain and mental anguish before her death and eliminated a $200,000 award to the daughter's estate for her pain and mental anguish. (Vogler v. Blackmore, 2003)

[Rippersnapper]

I should have left a link

Edith Brown Clement

Also, I like this choice better

Nominees-Justice Janice Rogers Brown Nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
A review of California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown's record to date raises serious questions and grave concerns about her persistent and disturbing hostility to affirmative action, civil rights, the rights of people with disabilities, workers' rights, and criminal rights. In addition, Brown has often been the lone justice to dissent on the California Supreme Court, illustrating that her judicial philosophy is outside the mainstream. Not only does she show an inability to dispassionately review cases, her opinions are based on extremist ideology that ignores judicial precedent, including that set by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Janice Rogers Brown: In Her Own Words

June 2, 2005

People For the American Way

Janice Rogers Brown On American Government

Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible. ["A Whiter Shade of Pale," Speech to Federalist Society (April 20. 2000)("Federalist speech" at 8]

Where government advances - and it advances relentlessly - freedom is imperiled; community impoverished; religion marginalized and civilization itself jeopardized....When did government cease to be a necessary evil and become a goody bag to solve our private problems? ["Hyphenasia: the Mercy Killing of the American Dream," Speech at Claremont-McKenna College (Sept. 16, 1999) at 3,4]

In the last 100 years - and particularly in the last 30 - ...[g]overnment has been transformed from a necessary evil to a nanny - benign, compassionate, and wise. Sometimes transformation is a good thing. Sometimes, though, it heralds not higher ground but rather, to put a different gloss on Pat Moynihan's memorable phrase, defining democracy down. ["Fifty Ways to Lose Your Freedom," Speech to Institute of Justice (Aug. 12, 2000)("IFJ speech") at 2]

[W]e no longer find slavery abhorrent. We embrace it. We demand more. Big government is not just the opiate of the masses. It is the opiate. The drug of choice for multinational corporations and single moms; for regulated industries and rugged Midwestern farmers and militant senior citizens. [IFJ speech at 3-4]

Government acts as a giant siphon, extracting wealth, creating privilege and power, and redistributing it. [Speech at McGeorge School of Law (Nov. 21, 1997) at 18][See also Landgate, Inc. v. California Coastal Commission, 953 P.2d 1188, 1212 (Cal. 1998)(Brown, J., dissenting)(referring to government as "relentless siphon.")]  

Janice Rogers Brown: In Her Own Words

[Ol' Sparky]

She's also stated that Roe is "settled" law. Why do you believe should would vote to overturn Roe?

[davidosborne]

MY CHOICE FOR SCOTUS......

ASHCROFT, John David, a Senator from Missouri; born in Chicago, Ill., on May 9, 1942; attended the public schools in Springfield, Missouri; graduated from Yale University 1964; received J.D. degree from University of Chicago School of Law 1967; admitted to the bar in Springfield 1967; taught business law at Southwest Missouri State University; state auditor of Missouri 1973-1975; attorney general of Missouri 1976-1985; Governor of Missouri 1985-1993; elected as a Republican to the United States Senate in 1994 and served from January 3, 1995 to January 3, 2001; unsuccessful candidate for reelection in 2000; attorney general of the United States, 2001-.

[Ole Okie]

And, most importantly of all, she appears to be quite conservative but SHE DOESN'T HAVE AN EXTENSIVE PAPER TRAIL FOR 'RATS TO DISTORT!

Oh please.

This was the very "asset" possessed by none other than (Tantara!)DAVID SOUTER.

He had no paper trail. He was touted to be conservative. He was vouched for by the (supposedly) conservative Warren Rudmann.

He was George H.W. Bush's most serious mistake.

No more Souters, please!!!!!

[jwalsh07]

And, most importantly of all, she appears to be quite conservative but SHE DOESN'T HAVE AN EXTENSIVE PAPER TRAIL FOR 'RATS TO DISTORT!

Surprise, surprise. Guess who else didn't have much of a "paper trail" but "grew" on the SCOTUS?

[Clintonfatigued]

Roe vs. Wade is settled law for a lower court judge. They are bound by it even if they disagree with it.

However, on the Supreme Court she would not be bound to uphold precedent if the Roe vs. Wade were to be revisited.

[Ol' Sparky]

I suppose it depends on what the meaning of the word settled is in this case. But, I'm reluctant to see anyone nominated that doesn't have a record of stating Roe should be overturned.

Regarding Roe v. Wade, Judge Michael O'Connell, another candidate, said at his hearing that it is “as settled as any issue can be in constitutional law,” and that the right to an abortion reflects “the consensus of the American people.”

Settled in his case means he wouldn't overturn Roe if he had the chance.

[shempy]

I agree with you 100%. NO MORE SOUTERS!

I just cannot believe that GWB would repeat the biggest error of his father. Even if the Republicans ultimately fail at her confirmation, Janice Brown is exactly the right person for the job. If confirmation is to be a Republican failure, let it be a Senate failure and not the president's. It is the right fight to get into.

[b4its2late]

Looks like you might be right on.....

[Young Scholar]

If you are talking about Michael McConnell, he very clearly stated (for his appeals court confirmation hearing) that it was settled because "the Supreme Court said so," refusing to say it was settled because the right was found in the Constitution (as Democrats hoped he would). Since an appeals court is bound to follow Supreme Court precedent, it was settled for him, but his refusal to find the right in the Constitution means that he likely believes it isn't there, and would overturn Roe if he had the chance. He has a long record of strongly opposing Roe.