| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 07/19/2005 5:18:23 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
new thread http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1446387/posts |
Posted on 07/19/2005 9:23:04 AM PDT by Howlin
Edited on 07/19/2005 5:12:12 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
TICK TOCK...............
Something tells me you're not surprised.
http://www.nathannewman.org/log/archives/003227.shtml
So how bad would she be? She qualifies as a "stealth candidate" in having fewer published views than some alternatives, but the evidence is that she's a hard right judicial activist, especially on the issue of gutting the Congress's regulatory power in the name of "federalism." As Jeffrey Rosen in this article details:
Everything about her record suggests she would enthusiastically support the federalism revolution. This year, for example, a group of Texas developers challenged the constitutionality of the Endangered Species Act after the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in an effort to protect a rare species of underground bugs, denied them a permit to develop a shopping mall. The Texas appellate court rejected the challenge, but Clement joined a blistering dissent by Judge Edith Jones (another possible Bush Supreme Court nominee) criticizing the panel for crafting "a constitutionally limitless theory of federal protection." Taken to its logical limits, the Constitution in Exile would call into question not only environmental protections but workplace regulations like the Occupational Safety and Health Act.
SimilarlyPeople for the American Way has this site up on Clement and details that she supported radically restricting Congress's jurisdiction over criminal law involving theft and robbery:
"In other words, Judge Clement voted to significantly limit the reach of the Hobbs Act and the authority of Congress under the Commerce Clause. In doing so, she would have overturned established Fifth Circuit precedent and ruled in a manner inconsistent with the law in several other circuits.
On the same page, PFAW documents her hostility to consumers and to juries having the right to assess damages against corporations who harm the public: This case concerned a truck accident involving an eighteen-wheeler tractor trailer...the jury found the truck company and driver liable and awarded damages, which included $200,000 each to the estates of Becky and Kallie Vogler for their pain and mental anguish prior to death, as approved by the trial court...the majority reduced the award to Mrs. Vogler’s estate to $30,000. So even where damages are hardly astronomical -- a few hundred thousand to compensate for the death of two people -- Clement's instinct is to second-guess juries in favor of corporate profits.
Now, as folks who read this blog know, I might be favorable to a conservative Justice who believed in real judicial restraint, including weakening Roe, but if that hostility to Roe is combined with hard right judicial activism aimed at dismantling the democratic power to regulate corporations, that is the worst of all worlds. And Clement could likely be that.
Bad on Labor Rights: In Avondale v. Davis, Clement argued that attorneys fees could be cut as "excessive" where court awards are low.
The reality is that economic recovery under workmens comp and other labor laws are often very small for low-paid workers, since they don't make that much to being with and damages are measured against ones earnings, so the potential costs of lawyers fees are about the only incentive companies have to settle cases. With this kind of standard, employers would have every incentive to stretch out legal proceedings, knowing no poor plaintiff could hire a lawyer who knew they'd have no ability to recover their legal costs.
Weakening American With Disabilities Act: In Blanks v. Southwestern Bell, Clement wrote a decision denying a right of an HIV suffer from even going to a jury to argue his employer refused to accomodate his disease-based disability and would only offer him an alternative job at much lower pay, arguing that HIV status did not constitute a disability under the ADA.
All that means is she's seen as being tot he right of STevens. So was Souter.
I'm just popping corn and waiting \this out.
;^)
"coordinated nationwide raids" sounds like words you'd hear alot living in a police state.
Do you have a link?
LOL! Man this is funny watching the Dems all in a tither again. I bet cell phones and blackberries in D.C. are going crazy.
If so, it would not surprise me.
Until I hear the name from his lips, I do not consider it settled. This is why I'm prefacing statements with IF it is Clement.
It's the Supreme Court that is out of the mainstream -- from Roe to emminent domain -- and most want it shifted to the right.
Bull. That smacks of moderate, truth lies somewhere in between, "cycle-of-violence", understand the enemy garbage.
I propose the following definition:
Liberals: "Destroy our way of life"
Conservatives: "Preserve our way of life"
Im shocked!!!!....notice 4 exclamation marks..LOL
wow you can read minds I'm impressed
We need a police state to stop the enemy within. I'm all for it.
Clements has the support of a moderate (to liberal) home state senator. Big deal.
Reuters is now reporting that Bush will not announce a nominee, but instead in a joint conference with Rupert Murdoch will launch a new FOX political reality show called "So You Think You Can Adjudicate". The winner of this show will get a nomination to the Supreme Court.
A master stroke by Bush, if you ask me.
There's a thread on it...do you need me to find it for you?
LOL Don't forget the butter! It's going to be a long day!
I hope he picks someone who is paleoconservative and to the right of Anthony Scalia. Moreover, he/she must be someone who will protect our borders, Western culture and heritage or the country will soon slide into anarchy.
I'm prepared, though, if he/she aint a paleo and the country continues in its descend into third worldism.
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.