Posted on 07/19/2005 6:49:13 AM PDT by Pyro7480
Court Speculation Centers on Female Judge
By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer
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.
"My desire is to get this process moving so that someone will be confirmed — whoever he or she is — will be confirmed by October" when the court reconvenes," Bush said Monday.
White House officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk publicly about the process, said Bush's timetable appears to have been accelerated and that a choice could come as early as Tuesday.
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."
The officials said all of the candidates on Bush's short list are judges, both men and women; there had been speculation that he might put a nonjudicial political figure on the bench.
In a sign that Bush was getting close to naming his pick, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., chairman of the Judiciary Committee, was called to the White House on Monday. Specter, who would lead the confirmation process in the Senate, has said he hopes Bush selects a moderate jurist.
An announcement would turn the spotlight in Washington toward the Supreme Court vacancy and away from news about Bush's top political adviser Karl Rove and the ongoing federal probe into who leaked the name of a CIA officer.
White House officials have refused to discuss the names of top prospects being considered as a replacement for retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who was the first woman appointed to the court.
Interest groups say another female candidate thought to be under consideration was Edith Hollan Jones, who also serves on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.
Other names thought to be under consideration were: Maura Corrigan, a judge on the Michigan Supreme Court; Cecilia M. Altonaga, a U.S. District Court judge for the Southern District of Florida; Mary Ann Glendon, a Harvard Law School professor; Karen Williams from the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va.; Janice Rogers Brown, recently confirmed by the Senate for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit; and Priscilla Owen, who was just confirmed for a seat on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
"It could come any time this week," said Manuel Miranda, chairman of the conservative Third Branch Conference. He said he believes the White House has shifted its focus to women. That would mean that Bush's selection would not be his loyal friend, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
Miranda said he would like to see a Hispanic named to the court, but it might make more sense to name a woman so that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is not the only woman on the nation's highest court. "I think, at this point, a woman politically is much more advantageous," he said.
Sean Rushton, director of the conservative Committee for Justice, which will support Bush's nominee, said that while his group is "ready for it to be any minute," making the announcement next week would give liberals like Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., a little less time to push public opinion.
"If Ted Kennedy is not anywhere near a microphone when the nominee is announced, that is an advantage," Rushton said.
Congress goes on its traditional monthlong summer recess at the end of the month, and confirmation hearings are expected after Labor Day if Bush makes a nomination soon.
Bush, who had discussions over the weekend with his senior advisers about the court vacancy, said he is still evaluating prospects and needs to talk with some face-to-face. But he also said he wants the Senate to be able to complete confirmation hearings so a new justice will be on the court when it begins its new session in the fall.
Bush was careful not to disclose too many details about his selection process. When a reporter said, "We understand you are now close to a decision," Bush replied, "Well, thank you for telling me where I am in the process."
The president said he already knows some of those who may be in contention.
"In other words, I'm familiar with some of the people that are being speculated about in the press, and so I don't need to interview them," he said.
Did the Judge have anything to do with Emerson????
All she says is that the Supreme Court has ruled that way.
Do I wish she had added, like Pryor, that their ruling is a legal abomination?
Yes.
Exactly.
And this is how we are going to win this issue. Overturning Roe v. Wade will not do one thing to limit the number of abortions in this country. Empowering state legislatures to do what they are designed to do will have a far greater impact.
She wasn't asked that. Don't get me wrong, she may or may not be a good Justice, I don't know anything about her. I just despise the professional fundraisers using every nominee as an excuse to scam dollars out of good but naive Christians and conservatives.
Our dollars need to be used to help the President's choice get through the confirmation process, not keep everyone off so the fundraising window remains open longer.
It looks like Teddy Kennedy and Chuckie Schumer got EXACTLY what they wanted--a pro-choice, conservative IN THE MOLD OF Sandra O'Conner. It looks like their strategy worked like a charm! Many conservatives will howl big-time, but the President will mollify them when the Chief Justice retires.
The President then WILL nominate a REAL CONSERVATIVE (like Luttig) to replace Rehnquist to quiet the conservative base.
Bottom line? Kennedy and Schumer get what they wanted--no change in the 'balance' that they deem so important (of course, only under a republican administration). In the end, we get a court that is actually a bit LESS conservative than the last one,,,,,,,not much to show for having a republican president make two appointments.
Shattering my hopes. I was hoping President Bush would nominate his mother, Barbara Bush. With her experience of keeping politicians in check, she would have turned the tables on the Ted Kennedy bunch. And serving just a year on the court she might have put the court back on the right path too.
OK, I'll admit it. It was a fun thought. I wanted Barbara to rip Ted Kennedy and ease the way for any future court nominees. That would've made the best Congressional daytime soap since the Clinton impeachment proceedings.
But the Supreme Court said it does and lower courts, such as the one she was being confirmed to have to go by what the Supreme Court says. Once on the Supreme Court she can read the Constitution anyway she chooses.
From the "People for the American Way" website:
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=13514
"Confirmed Judges Confirm Our Worst Fears"
Edith Clement
There is nothing to suggest that she thinks Roe is constitutional or would uphold it as a Supreme Court Justice.
If Bush names Edith Clement, it is as bad as if he named Gonzales, perhaps worse, given the stronger tendency of women to moderate over time on the bench. Clement would be such a stupid waste of his legacy. Luttig. If not Luttig because it's a "chick seat" then Rogers-Brown, if not rogers-Brown then Owen, if not Owen then Jones. But Please Mr President do not name Edith Clement.
What she said was that as a 5th-circuit court judge, she would not pull a Judge Moore, and would respect the higher court's stance. She has not said she agrees with Roe v. Wade, or even that she would abide with Stare Decisis.
"If lower court judges won't challenge previous SCOTUS decisions, then the SCOTUS will never have an opportunity to review and correct its previous errors."
Pretty sure it's not up to a lower court to "challenge" a higher court, unless it's in the context of a case. Here, she was answering questions in a vacuum. Perhaps Billybob can clear this up, or one of our other lawyers.
W is not really trying to screw the party in the next election is he?
I agree with you. This notion that she is somehow Pro-Choice borders on the absurd. Both Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia gave answers much in the same way.
At this point, folks here need to calm down, get the facts, and properly put her comments in context with the manner in which she has decided cases. From all accounts, she is a strict constructionist (i.e. the Scalia/Thomas method for deciding cases).
Never? Of course. Without Roe where would all the secular humanist free souls go to rectify the results of their profligate activities? To theorize that fetal murder is a fait accompli presupposes that secularism has already won the cultural war over a Power that cannot be defeated. I, for one, am not prepared to turn in my Missal for the Khama Sutra.
Only once in my career did I know FOR SURE what was happening. I was on staff to the Bicentennial Commission on the Constitution, when Chief Justice Warren Burger resigned so President Reagan could nominate Rehnquist. I knew about that one transaction 30 minutes before the official announcement. That's because Burger traded the Chairmanship of the Commission (at a high salary, appointed by the President, including the firing of the former Chairman, Jepson) for letting Reagan name a new Chief Justice.
Other than that one instance, I offer nothing more than educated guesses on this process.
Congressman Billybob
"Right, but Garza felt compelled, when the issue arose, to follow Roe v. Wade while criticizing it in an opinion."
That was in an OPINION.
"If Clement was strongly anti-Roe, she could have qualified her comment."
Her comment was part of a CONFIRMATION HEARING.
Big difference, I think.
I admit I am troubled by that, but let me play devil's advocate for a second: this confirmation was for a circuit court seat that doesn't have the same authority to revisit SC decisions like the SC does. In other words, the 5th Circuit is bound to follow the SC, so Roe IS settled law as far as the COA is concerned.
She is from Alabama. She went to the U of A. Roll Tide! She went to Tulane Law School. That's the extent of my knowledge. lol
Bush doesn't need two fights. He should make sure he only riles the libs.
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.