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.
Let's not bash Clement on the basis of a MSM story, remember the left likes to pull our chains and trick us to eat our own.
If we have the facts on Clement, carefully post here and educate us as to her stance on important issues. Don't just rely on the press hogwash.
What state is Clement from?
I have not seen statistics on abortions among whites and minorities. Are the minority women more likely to procure abortions than whites?
I agree. I would want to see the context of the alleged qote before making up my mind. If it was a part of her last confirmation hearing, I am not worried. As a judge on a lower court, she was required to uphold Supreme Court rulings. Even Michael McConnell, whom everyone here seems to acknowledge as a sound conservative, agreed that he would have to uphold Roe v. Wade as an appeals court judge.
Alabama
It gets worse--as a young woman I was told by people on the left (in NOW) that making abortion illegal was a plot by the right to force white women to have babies to increase the white population. "A Handmaid's Tale" was considered a vision of the future, not just a sci-fi novel. Many of us bought into this nonsense conspiracy, as liberals are still buying into it today.
Question 2B: Do you believe the constitution contemplates a ``right to privacy''?
Answer: Yes, as I stated in my responses to the follow-up questions asked by Senator Kohl, I do believe that the Constitution contemplates a right to privacy. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the Constitution encompasses a right to privacy.
Question 2C: Do you believe the constitutional right to privacy encompasses a woman's right to have an abortion?
Answer: The Supreme Court has clearly held that the right to privacy guaranteed by the Constitution includes the right to have an abortion. The cases handed down by the Supreme Court on the right to abortion have reaffirmed and redefined this right, and the law is settled in that regard. If confirmed, I will faithfully apply Supreme Court precedent.
Let the parsing begin.
Apparently she has eased fears over at the WH...Souter redux?? http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1445955/posts/
THE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION INCLUDES THE RIGHT TO HAVE AN ABORTION.
A person would have had to been asleep for 32 years not to know that. What does the "religious right" expect, a nominee who says, "Gee, I didn't know the Supreme Court had made abortion legal. When did they do that? Are you sure?"
Sorry for screaming, but the chicken littles don't seem to hear anything less, and the Bush-haters try to pretend not to hear anything at all.
Thank you for this rational post.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
She chose her words pretty carefully ... she never says she thinks Roe is constitutional, just that the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that way.
As an appeal court justice she felt bound to follow that precedent ... on the Supreme Court it may be a different story.
That's my optimistic reading of the "penumbra" of her statement. :-)
Any would-be lower court judge who said he/she does not intend to follow the precedents of the US Supreme Court would be clearly out of line. That is exactly what this judge is saying in this Q&A exchange.
It is an entirely different kettle of fish to be on the Supreme Court where those precedents are written and established.
That's the way this four-decade veteran of Supreme Court research sees this issue.
Congressman Billybob
Well, it doesn't give us a warm fuzzy. Technically her statement is correct from the perspective of a circuit court judge. Maybe her answer was to appease Democrats drilling her. But then again, she does not have a record that indicates, so the question still lingers on where she stands on many conservative issues. From what all I have heard she is brilliant.
That's a good point BillyBob. I'm not as concerned now.
Of course, you may very well prefer someone who won't defer to such bad precedent.
If this is the pick then we should all thank GW for screwing the base once again. Abortion is not a constitutional right, it should be decided by the states. This woman is not a constitutionalist.
The Constitution has no guarantee to a right of privacy.
As a percentage of respective populations, yes. I saw a stat a while back that for every 100 live minority births, there are 39 abortions. The ratio is 100:25 for whites.
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.