Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Court Speculation Centers on Female Judge (Who Thinks Abortion is Constitutionally-Protected)
Yahoo! News (AP) ^ | 7/19/2005 | Deb Riechmann

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.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: abortion; bush; constitution; edithclement; scotus; supremecourt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-123 next last
To: Pyro7480
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.

I'm not optimistic if GWB is consulting with Captain RINO, Chief-Back-Stabber-in-Waiting Specter.

101 posted on 07/19/2005 8:54:38 AM PDT by TChris ("You tweachewous miscweant!" -- Elmer Fudd)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

This might be premature, so forgive me, but what do you know about Judge Clement? Do you think she is reliable?


102 posted on 07/19/2005 8:56:10 AM PDT by LWalk18
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Oliver Optic

Excellent sourcing, Ollie. As for my parsing:

She did say that the CONSTITUTION found that a right to privacy exists. Which is absolutely correct: the zone of what constitutes search and siezure has always been defined by the concept of privacy.

When asked whether the right to privacy extends to abortion, she did not answer the Yes/No question with a Yes. Instead, she deferred to the US Supreme Court, and promised to faithfully apply precedent.

She is no Judge Moore, but she is no Justice Souter either.

Politically, I would have relished the fight with the Democrats, as it would hand us a winning issue in subsequent elections. And I WOULD feel more comfortable with a noisier conservative, like Rogers-Brown, who would never be tempted to become part of the beltway establishment. But I do not feel sold down the river on Clement. She looks every bit as conservative as Thomas or Scalia did.


103 posted on 07/19/2005 8:56:12 AM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

Do you know the context in which Edith Clement said abortion was constitutionally protected and that Roe was settled law? If she said it in a ruling, a case could be made that she was only abiding by Supreme Court precedent, as she had to do as a lower court judge. But if she said it as a philosophical belief, in a speech or in response to a question, that's very worrisome, and it would hardly qualify her as a strict constructionist to be defending the worst example of judicial overreach in our nation's history.


104 posted on 07/19/2005 8:56:45 AM PDT by puroresu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: John Robertson
Pretty sure it's not up to a lower court to "challenge" a higher court, unless it's in the context of a case

Well, of course.
That's the way the system is supposed to work, isn't it?
A lower court can't directly overturn a SCOTUS ruling on a case.
But they can certainly judge similar cases on their own merits, and force the SCOTUS to either reaffirm or overturn previous decisions.

105 posted on 07/19/2005 8:58:20 AM PDT by Willie Green (Some people march to a different drummer - and some people polka)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: TChris
I'm not optimistic if GWB is consulting with Captain RINO, Chief-Back-Stabber-in-Waiting Specter.

It's probably considered good form to inform the head of the Judiciary committe prior to making a public announcement.

106 posted on 07/19/2005 8:58:34 AM PDT by kevkrom (WARNING: If you're not sure whether or not it's sarcasm, it probably is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: kevkrom
It's probably considered good form to inform the head of the Judiciary committe prior to making a public announcement.

That's certainly true. I hope the communication was in the form of an announcement rather than a consultation.

107 posted on 07/19/2005 9:04:42 AM PDT by TChris ("You tweachewous miscweant!" -- Elmer Fudd)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: The_Eaglet

Yes, the Constitution does include a right to privacy. A right to privacy was understood to exist at the time the Constitution was written, and the ninth amendment makes clear that the enumeration of certain rights in the bill of rights does not mean that other rights are not still reserved by the people. The right to privacy has been, from the beginning, the key to understanding various of the amendments and clauses of the constitution, such as the defense against search and siezure.

But the definition of privacy has always been those issues at which there is no public interest. There is plainly a public interest in protecting the lives of all persons. The problem with Roe v Wade is that it used an absurd legalism to infer that since the fourteenth amendment did not define unborn people as persons, they did not even have the right to life, and thus found that there was no legitimate state interest in the regulation of abortion.


108 posted on 07/19/2005 9:07:40 AM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
Precident should only apply in matters of law and fact as established in trials. On Constitutional issues, precident has been overturned many times. Roe Vs. Wade itself is a good example. Up intil 1972, it was Costitutional to outlaw abortion. The the "Supremes" overturned almost 200 years of legal precident and presto! - It suddenly beame Unconstitutional to ban abortion.
109 posted on 07/19/2005 9:08:29 AM PDT by BnBlFlag (Deo Vindice/Semper Fidelis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: CWW

Please read today's www.newsmax.com. The article referenced at the top makes her position very clear.


110 posted on 07/19/2005 9:15:35 AM PDT by stockstrader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: dangus
She is no Judge Moore, but she is no Justice Souter either.

Your analysis nails it pretty well, I would say.

I think there is zero chance she would be Souter redux.

At this point, we cannot rule out O'Connor redux.

111 posted on 07/19/2005 9:27:50 AM PDT by Oliver Optic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

Thanks for the insight.

Now you've got me speculating on what bait it would take to lure a few more off the bench!


112 posted on 07/19/2005 9:35:28 AM PDT by Diddle E. Squat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: stockstrader

I do not believe that this quotation cited in Newsmax makes her position clear. Let's take a look at it....

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."

First, her statement that the Supreme Court "has clearly held that the right to privacy guaranteed by the Constition includes the right to have an abortion." This is a correct statement of the law. The Supreme Court has so held this to be true. Justices Scalia and Thomas would agree. She is simply stating the position of the current Supreme Court.

Second, her statement that "the law is settled in that regard" is also a correct statement of the law as it now stands.

These statements are not particularly useful in trying to determine how she might decide an abortion case and they do not reflect what her own viewpoints would be. Really, it boils down to what stare decisis effect she might give to Roe v. Wade and its progeny.

From all that I have seen and read from her decisions, she seems to be a strict constructionist. Taking all of this together, it is very hard for anyone to predict extactly how she would vote. For that matter, it was just as hard to predict how Scalia or Thomas would have voted at the time they were nominated.

No nominee will come out and state that Roe v. Wade should be overturned. It just won't happen that way. There will always be a certain guessing game in terms of trying to predict who a nominee will behave once on the Court.




113 posted on 07/19/2005 9:50:28 AM PDT by rog4vmi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: rog4vmi

If she is a strict constructionist, she will belive the Constitution trumps all, the intent of the founders next and only in last place, above judicial whim, is precidence.


114 posted on 07/19/2005 9:53:35 AM PDT by Jim Verdolini (We had it all, but the RINOs stalked the land and everything they touched was as dung and ashes!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: The_Eaglet

As long as you ignore the Fourth, Fifth and probably the Third amendments it doesn't. And the Ninth as well.


115 posted on 07/19/2005 10:09:22 AM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (Public Enemy #1, the RATmedia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
The writer misinterpreted the Judge's comment, which is 100% accurate under current law. As a Circuit Court of Appeals judge she is bound to apply Roe v. Wade which is indeed settled law as of today.

But as a Supreme Court Justice she would be free to overrule Roe if she felt that's what the Constitution requires. This article says nothing about the real question, which is how she would vote as a Justice, not a Judge of a court inferior to SCOTUS.

116 posted on 07/19/2005 10:13:40 AM PDT by colorado tanker (The People Have Spoken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stockstrader

A trade of Sandy for Edie will be a great move for Conservatives. Who cares if the Lunatic Fringe is unhappy? It is ALWAYS unhappy.


117 posted on 07/19/2005 10:19:22 AM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (Public Enemy #1, the RATmedia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Dionysius

Did that make you feel smart? I hope so because to the rest of us, you just sound like a pompous jerk.


118 posted on 07/19/2005 10:19:58 AM PDT by Hildy ("You miss 100% of the shots you never take." - Wayne Gretzky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: rog4vmi

Calm down? Calm down? How can we calm down? When everything hold dear is about to be sold down the river for 30 pieces of silver. It is time to PANIC, Panic I say nothing good ever happens without PANIC.

If the Lunatic Fringe does not get its way it will sit in the corner and POUT and all the world is powerless before a good Pout.


119 posted on 07/19/2005 10:24:17 AM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (Public Enemy #1, the RATmedia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Hildy

"Rest of us"? You speak for the entirety of Free Republic? Should I resign in shame? Megalomania does not become you, sweetie. But it is most consistent with your bombastic concepts of reality. No matter what the universal "you" believes, ABORTION WILL GO DOWN BECAUSE IT IS WRONG! Forgive me if I use the upper case, which I gather is your registered trademark.


120 posted on 07/19/2005 10:55:18 AM PDT by Dionysius (ACLU and tenure laws must go)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-123 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson