Well,
At least Gonzales is old news. :-D
Seriously folks, how many of you stated it was Gonzales no question without any proof? You were wrong. You dented your own credibility in reaction to an appointment that was not going to occur, so you have little room to speak to Bush's credibility.
Perhaps if you had invested your time in examining the records of people that were legitimate names in circulation, Clement was one, your time would have been better spent.
Instead of posting I have been trying to track down information on Clement. My assessment so far is that there is little flash. This is a disappointment to conservatives because they would feel more secure with an outspoken firebrand, but it does not indicate she isn't a suitable judge that would please us on the Court.
There is nothing in her record that hints at activism that I've seen. Nothing in her record that hints at concern in terms of rulings. A few tidbits that lead people to believe she's favorable to business, interesting ruling on the ability of a school district to fire a teacher. Then there is the statement she considers R v W settled law, but that in itself throws light neither way as only an activist judge would state otherwise. Whether she considers it settled law on the bench of the Supreme Court is unknown.
IMO, I think what we have here isn't a Liberal Justice. Her record doesn't indicate that. It indicates a solid Judge without any whiff of activism. The real question, imo, is whether she believes all precious precedents set by the Supreme Court are settled law or if she is amenable to overturning bad law from the High Court. That is the question we need an answer to.
Very astute.
I thought that the pick would be (and surely will be later) Gonzales. I FEAR that Clement will vote on the court just like Gonzales would have. But Edith Jones would be a solid conservative choice that would arouse fierce Democrat opposition. I look for the Democrats to defer on Clement, with a couple of dozen exceptions. Same as it would have been with Gonzales, who is sure to come!
So what? Another "moderate" like O'Connor or Kennedy would be just as bad ESPECIALLY in light of the fact Bush promised to nominated a Scalia-like originalist and the that the Republicans have 55 seats in the Senate. There is no good reason not to appoint someone that has proven track record similar to Scalia or Clarence Thomas.
That really is the question isn't it.
About a hundred years ago GK Chesterton had the following definition for Liberals and Conservatives:
Liberals: "Make new mistakes"
Conservatives: "Preserve old mistakes"
There is a ring of truth to that.
Here:
Business Casescontinued below...
Bratcher v. Nat'l Standard Life Ins. Co. (In re Monumental Life Ins. Co.), 365 F.3d 408 (CA5 2004) - dissented from panel decision authorizing class action to challenge racial discrimination in sale of life insurance policies.Richard v. Hoechst Celanese Chem. Group, Inc., 355 F.3d 345 (CA5 2003) - held that disgorgement of past profits was not a proper equitable remedy under RICO where defendant was no longer producing product that gave rise to RICO claim and, therefore, disgorgement would not serve to deter similar RICO violations in the future.
Commerce Clause
GDF Realty Investments, Ltd. v. Norton, 362 F.3d 286 (5th Cir. 2004): Judge Clement joined Judge Edith Hollan Jones's dissenting opinion from the denial of rehearing en banc. The opinion argued that the Endangered Species Act could not be applied to protect a rare species of underground bug since this act of preservation was not connected with "any sort of commerce, whether tourism, scientific research, or agricultural markets."Federalism
U.S. v. McFarland, 311 F.3d 376 (CA5 2002): A defendant who had been convicted of violating the Hobbs Act challenged his conviction on the grounds that the evidence against him was insufficient to establish a nexus to interstate commerce. Judge Clement joined Judge Garwood's dissent from the en banc opinion, arguing that Congress lacked power under the Commerce Clause to reach local robberies under the Hobbs Act.Standing
Jethroe v. Omnova Solutions, Inc. --- F.3d ----, 2005 WL 1385197 (CA5 2005): joined a majority opinion by Judge Jerry E. Smith holding that an employee who failed to disclose her pending EEOC charge and potential title VII claim to a bankruptcy court was judicially estopped from asserting Title VII claims pending at time she filed bankruptcy petition, as well as claims filed while bankruptcy was pending.Punitive Damages
Vogler v. Blackmore, 352 F.3d 150 (5th Cir. 2003): Judge Clement authored a majority opinion reducing a jury verdict for pain and suffering damages to the estates of a mother and three-year old daughter killed when an eighteen-wheel tractor trailer crossed the highway center-line and ran over their car. The damages to the mother were reduced from $200,000 to $30,000 and the pain and suffering award for the daughter was eliminated entirely based on the lack of specific evidence about the daughter's "awareness of the impending collision."Criminal Sentencing
United States v. Houston, 364 F.3d 243 (CA5 2004) - held that consensual sex, constituting statutory rape, between 20 year old male and 17 year old girl was not a "crime of violence" for purposes of provision requiring sentencing enhancement for crimes of violence.United States v. Medina-Anicacio, 325 F.3d 638 (5th Cir. 2003) - Judge Clement, writing for a unanimous panel, found that possession of a deadly weapon was not a crime of violence within the meaning of the sentencing guidelines and therefore overturned an enhancement to the defendant's sentence.
United States v. Turner, 319 F.3d 716 (5th Cir. 2003) - Judge Clement found that the district court erred in attributing five kilograms of cocaine to the defendant for sentencing purposes. Although the defendant was in fact part of a conspiracy to distribute that amount of drugs, only quantities which the defendant was actually involved with or could have reasonably foreseen (however, the sentence was upheld because Judge Clement found the error to be harmless).
United States v. Vargas-Duran, 319 F.3d 194 (CA5 2003) - Judge Clement dissented from the panel's decision that a conviction for "intoxicated assault" was necessarily a conviction for a "crime of violence" because it necessitated the use of force against another person. Judge Clement argued that under binding precedent, use of force was only a "crime of violence" if it was intentional. On rehearing en banc, the full circuit adopted Judge Clement's position.
Death Penalty/Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Riley v. Dretke, 362 F.3d 302 (CA5 2004) - rejected habeas claim by capital defendant whose defense attorney disregarded IQ test showing that inmate was retarded because attorney believed, based on personal observation and family and school records, that his client was not retarded.Beltran v. Cockrell, 294 F.3d 730 (5th Cir. 2002) - Judge Clement held that a defense attorney's failure to impeach eyewitness identifications with prior inconsistent statements by the witnesses constituted ineffective assistance of counsel and was grounds for habeas relief.
United States v. Harris, 408 F.3d 186 (CA5 2005) - reversing district court?s grant of habeas corpus and reinstating sentence in post-conviction proceeding brought by police officer convicted of federal civil rights violations for excessive use of force with his baton on a drunken suspect in police custody. Writing for panel, rejects defendant's argument that his counsel failed to call witnesses to rebut government evidence that defendant was a racist, explaining that none of the witnesses would have been able to testify to defendant's guilt or innocence and that in any event government could have obtained a conviction b/c of evidence that he used a dangerous weapon. Also, defendant was not charged with a hate crime. Also rejects defendant?s argument that failure to allow him to testify on his own behalf constituted ineffective assistance, explaining that there was no prejudice.
Criminal Due Process
United States v. Mason, 293 F.3d 826 (5th Cir. 2002) - Judge Clement held that a prosecution witness's misleading statements about the nature of his agreement with the government violated the defendant's due process rights.United States v. Tarango, 396 F.3d 666 (Jan. 2005) - Panel affirms district court's grant of new trial to defendant tried at the same time as absent co- defendant, explaining that defendant had been clearly prejudiced by being tried along an "empty chair," particularly when much of the evidence that the jury heard was inadmissible as to her. Judge Clement dissents, finding clear and compelling evidence that defendant received a fair trial - including the limiting instructions issued by the district court to the jury, the fact that defendant was acquitted as to one charge, and the evidence itself.
First Amendment - Free Speech Generally
Chiu v. Plano Indep. Sch. Dist., 339 F.3d 273 (5th Cir., 2003) - held that school district's policy requiring pre-approval of protest fliers handed out by parents at the school's "math night" constituted an unconstitutional prior restraint, in violation of the First Amendment.Finch v. Fort Bend Indep. Sch. Dist., 333 F.3d 555 (5th Cir., 2003) - held, among other things, that former principal's First Amendment retaliation claim failed when the retaliation was allegedly in response to her proposals to other school officials and school board members that the school create a special curriculum for older students who had failed several grades. The speech was not entitled to protection, the court held, because the principal failed "to show how her proposal was actually aired or considered in any 'widespread debate in the community.'"