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.
And it would be confirmation suicide for a judge to come out against Roe v. Wade.
Roe v. Wade can be dismembered by applying a federalist approach. And this judge is a member of the Federalist Society and has shown limited-government thinking in a couple of her writings that I have seen. So I'm not ready to throw her under the bus until I see more.
Honestly, I could care less where a judge stands on "issues". Her record indicates that she follows the law as written and the Constitution, and that's what I do care about -- I don't want a "conservative activist" judge any more than a "liberal activist" judge. I want a judge to follow the law and the Constitution, and the rest will sort itself out.
Also, google around for Margaret Sanger (planned parenthood's founder) and eugenics.
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.
THAT's the problem here.
That means nothing as, her position as an appeals court judge requires her to rule IAW established supreme court precident, even when such rulings are crap. AS a robed master, she can rule based on the Constitution if she desires.
More important would be her view on Stare Decisis. Does she view bad precident as outranking clear intent?
She just notes that the Supreme Court has said so and that as a lower court justice she is bound by Supreme Court precedent.
Believe me, I'm not leading the Edith Clements parade ... but I do want to give her a fair chance.
From what I've read, she very well might be. That quote was in the context of her confirmation hearing for the 5th Circuit. Do you think a judge would be nominated for that slot who dissented from Supreme Court precedent?
Roe v. Wade will gradually be dismembered, not overturned. And IMO that will happen with federalist judges refusing to overturn state restrictions.
That's as nutty as the notion that liberals support abortion in an effort to keep the black population down. Both bizarre extremes seen here.
Fine statement of the issue. To which I would add this question ...
Does she view Roe as bad precedent?
The answer to the abortion question was in upholding the previous rulings, and was the correct constitiutional answer until the law itself is modified.
We really won't know how Clement will vote on a lot of things yet. I would be very interested to hear her views on the Constitution and its interpretation in general. However, I am willing to give Bush the benefit of the doubt here; I hope it will be a fairly easy confirmation battle and get someone to replace O'Connor as quickly as possible. Of course, we can expect the lunatics on the left to paint her with a very broad brush...
Smirky Grin, and a wink, wink.
Well, she is exactly right when she says that abortion is constitutionally protected. After all, Roe v Wade IS the law of the land. However, has she ever said that she IS IN FAVOR OF that constitutional protection?
So... no third term for W, you're thinking?
Dan
ROE V. WADE WILL NEVER BE OVERTURNED. NEVER. NEVER. NEVER. Once you accept this, maybe you can make decisions that would be good for this Country. There are other issues besides abortion. Yikes.
No.... one that admits that NO governmental entity has the authority to legitimatize murder.
While I agree that she is conforming to the SCOTUS decision in her statement, it worries me that she might accept stare decisis should she sit on that court.
I don't think we will EVER see another SCJ who does not support the right to abort.
I think those of us who are anti-abortion need to do a better job of distributing literature with graphic photos.
It was the photos that changed MY mind about abortion a few years back.
i'd like to know more about Corrigan. can't find much about her other than she's member of federalist society, and big into foster care. she looks to be pushing issues concerning capping child support payments and giving dads more rights, altho not giving them a say in child's right to life.
can't find anything specific in relation to 2d amendment, immigration, abortion or gay-marriage.
any help here?
I'm hoping that as a good Alabama girl she thinks killing unborn children is a legal and moral abomination.
All the same I'd just as soon he nominated someone else.
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.