Replies

A couple years ago I had a case before the 5th Circuit and I thought that Edith Clement was going to be on the panel, so I started reading her cases. I couldn't form any opinions about her judicial philosophy as her writings were few and very non-specific.

I will be very upset if she is nominated to the Supreme Court. She is a pig in a poke. If another Bush says "trust me, I know what's inside the poke," I'm not willing to do so. This is not what I worked for or would find remotely acceptable.

We have the chance to appoint any number of originalists to the Court and begin the long process of turning the Court around. Clements on the bench is highly unlikely to be much of an improvement over O'Connor, if any.

I ran a WL search just to see if I could find a single opinion, even dicta, in her analysis. I must have looked through 40 cases and I ain't found crap. She's a master of terse, and that's great and all, but not for this kind of nomination. I want the truth, and believe me, I can handle it.

"If another Bush says 'trust me, I know what's inside the poke,' I'm not willing to do so. This is not what I worked for or would find remotely acceptable."

100% right. No more 'trust me.' Not on this. I'll trust him on reading the CIA reports. I'll trust him on what's up with the budget and what pork he needs to toss out. I'll trust him that the war was necessary. But I will not trust ANY Republican again on an unproven nominee. A KNOWN conservative had better get the nod. No more Souters!