Posted on 07/19/2005 6:37:36 AM PDT by Babu
WASHINGTON -- President Bush is close to making his first nomination to the Supreme Court, and Washington was abuzz with speculation Tuesday about Judge Edith Clement of the U.S. Court of Appeals in New Orleans.
There was no word from the White House on when Bush would disclose his selection but officials familiar with the process said it appeared an announcement was imminent. No one claimed to have been told the name by Bush, but Republican strategists and others focused on Clement, a 57-year-old jurist who was confirmed on a 99-0 vote by the Senate when she was elevated to the appeals court in 2001.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Sounds like certain disaster.
Probably. However back in 1986 even Scalia was confirmed 98-0.
Clement isn't a great choice, but I think she's better than Souter, O'Connor, or Gonzales.
What's her position on RKBA? Are AWBs "reasonable exercises of government power?"
Break out the vaseline...
Known as a conservative and a strict constructionist in legal circles, Clement also has eased fears among abortion-rights advocates. She has stated that the Supreme Court "has clearly held that the right to privacy guaranteed by the Constitution includes the right to have an abortion" and that "the law is settled in that regard." Conservatives who voted for Bush believing he was pro-life will hate this pick. And guess what...the Dems will still make her out to be a monster. Why not listen to our base instead of theirs?
I don't need a pro-life justice but noone who supports Roe v Wade is a constructionist.
Known as a conservative and a strict constructionist in legal circles, Clement also has eased fears among abortion-rights advocates. She has stated that the Supreme Court "has clearly held that the right to privacy guaranteed by the Constitution includes the right to have an abortion" and that "the law is settled in that regard." Conservatives who voted for Bush believing he was pro-life will hate this pick. And guess what...the Dems will still make her out to be a monster. Why not listen to our base instead of theirs?
I don't need a pro-life justice but noone who supports Roe v Wade is a constructionist.
If the argument goes that she is a strict constructionist and that is good, how in the same breath can she say that the Supreme Court's interpretation of the privacy clause that creates the "right" to abortion is "settled law."
That flies directly in the face of what a constructionist would argue.
If that quote attributed to her is accurate, the pro-life voting block is going to be alienated big time. Count me in that group.
I am not necessarily 'pro-life' but I am pro constructionist and don't see any way that a true constructionist can find a right to abortion in the Constitution. So I don't think I could support her nomination on that basis alone.
Roe is settled as far as the 5th Circuit is concerned. She was making a statement of fact.
That doesn't mean she personally would decide the other way once she is on the court. We are not going to get someone with a history of railing against Roe and a pro-life sticker on their SUV. That's not the way the game works.
To me, (if I had to be a one-issue person), how she feels about the Kelo decision/eminent domain, and how municipalities can seize private land to be then handed over to developers, is the biggest issue going. Everything else pales in comparison to that recent decision.
I agree. Clement is not such a bad choice. But I would prefer the other Edith.
There is very little really settled law in the UCOTUS.
One issue argument: It's moot. If she's not a constructionist, everything becomes subjective so on any given issue she could bail.
What are her philosophical moorings if she can look at the constitution and see a "right" to abortion. Alternatively, if she is interpreting based solely on previous rulings of the Supreme Court she again is not a constructionist.
I say its time to do what the Politicians don't seem to be able to do.
MAKE A PROMISE
So here is my Promise.
1) I promise not to vote GOP or DEM in 2006 and 2008 should we lose the battle for SCOTUS by not placing Pro-Lifers to the Bench.
2) I will not Break my promise no matter what special interests surface between now and 2008. I will not sell out no matter what, be it loss of job, money, economy, health, or even life or limb.
3) I will remind every other pro-lifer between now and then of the sell out (should it occur) so that our collective memories don't fade.
Sheep on the right, goats on the left...
Ping this...
I'll second that for the second time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.