[Congressman Billybob]

You are barking up the wrong tree. Have you read the exchange between her and Kennedy in her hearing for the Circuit Court? Read that, for crying out loud.

She said, which is true for EVERY Circuit Court judge, that decisions of the Supreme Court are binding on them. Duh. Of course they are. Only the Ninth Circus (excuse me, Circuit) is in the habit of thumbing their noses at the Supreme Court, and they regularly get slapped down for doing that.

If you hadn't noticed, the Supreme Court is the one where the guys and gals in black robes make the decisions that all the lower courts, including state courts, are obligated to follow. Looks like we're going to get another card-carrying member of the Federalist Society on the Supreme Court. I view that as a hugely positive step.

John / Billybob

[COEXERJ145]

Thank you for trying to put some sanity into this thread but highly likely most will ignore it.

[mystery-ak]

Thanks Billybob..I trust your opinion re this selection..

[prairiebreeze]

Bump that Congressman BB. Some people here are in full blown hysterics.

And others are just here to stir the pot.

[Types_with_Fist]

I view that as a hugely positive step.

Like many here I was looking for the sellout. But looking closer at Clement I don't see it. Her comment on Roe was just exactly what she should have said... the only thing she really could have said.

Bush could have picked an obviously more conservative nominee but I don't think there's any evidence that Clement is "another Souter." A couple of tidbits: I've heard Fox report that she presided over the fraud trial of former Louisiana governor Edwards. I also saw someone on another thread quote a source that said she had booked a flight to DC this morning.

What's up with the prime time announcement?

[steveegg]

The thing is, I have my doubts that Clement would pass the Fry Cook test.

[Fudd Fan]

A voice of sanity! Bravo

[ken5050]

Question: The other Edith was said to have been the runner-up choice when Bush 41 picked Souter. Too bad...you or anyone recall why she didn't get it?

[advance_copy]

When a judge says "settled law", they see it as more than just binding due to court hierarchy. It requires legislation to reverse. When "settled law" is a ruling on the Constitution by the Supreme Court, it requires an amdendment to change. I take this description from what I've heard Ken Starr say.

[BlessedByLiberty]

I think there are posters who want to agitate the forum and your reasoned explanation is a good counter to them.