Here are some round-ups on Judge Clement:
Red State– Here, here, and here.)
Andrew Sullivan: Just go and start scrolling.
Think Progress- These guys went all postal and have a Supreme Court blog
Supreme Court Nomination Blog- Just start scrolling.
Out of all of these links, the most interesting thing comes from Red State:
Something has happened in the past ten minutes. I’ve had three five (they keep IM’ing) people from the media and conservative think tanks IM to say we’re on a wild goose chase — the conservative think tank people say its an intentional one. According to them, we should not be looking at Edith Clement, but at her cohort on the Fifth Circuit, Edith H. Jones a/k/a the Female Scalia.
My money is on Clement still, but it is interesting how, by the time I’ve finished writing this post seven people have IM’ed to say it is Jones, not Clement.
Here is my quick take.
I was betting heavily on Janice Rogers Brown. That now looks to be incorrect, and I am relieved. I really thought Bush would go Gonzales/Brown if he had two slots to fill. The one slot changes the equation. I am pleasantly surprised at this pick (assuming it comes true), because it represents a lean toward the pragmatic. Clement should be confirmed rather easily (she got her current post 99-0 in 2001) yet she doesn’t appear fire-breathing enough to please the demands of Dobson and Perkins. She is obviously somewhat of an unknown quantity and could become a stalking horse in one direction or the other. Bush hopes to assure righties she will come down correctly on issues of abortion, I hope she turns in to the next Souter/Kennedy.
Compared to Gonzales, it’s also worth considering, that Abu-to Gonzales is not really guaranteed to be any safer as a potential pro-choice pick, and he comes with the additional strikes of the torture memos and his overall Bush-toady status.
Anyone Bush picks is likely to lean away on Roe. But I believe Bush’s true priorities lie with corporate interests above all else — his pick will certainly be a corporate foil first, other matters second.
M. Scott Eiland
I’m torn. From reports, Clement sounds more like the one I’d pick if I had the call. On the other hand, Jones’ selection will cause a lot of people I dislike intensely to go absolutely insane (she’s been on their boogeyperson list for over fifteen years now) and provide endless entertainment and political ammunition for my side–in addition to probably losing in the end and demolishing the judicial filibuster in the process.
So either way, I win.
Although I’ve only looked at a few Lefty sites, it seems like there’s not a big outcry yet over Clement. I don’t know if that’s because a lot of people don’t know about her yet, because she’s just not as bad as people feared, or if it’s just because the President hasn’t announced her officially, but given the silence, I’m holding out hope that (assuming it is her) she goes to the Court without a lot of hoopla.
Uh, looking at what Andrew Sullivan has to say, he’s got the exact opposite impression of me. I guess my above statement is wrong. Maybe the Left is charged up about Clement? Anyone know?
Speaking as a lefty, I get the impression that people would generally be OK with Clement. She wouldn’t be their first choice, but she wouldn’t be someone to go to the wall against, either. That’s pretty much my view, so I’m pleased.
Jones, on the other hand, is someone that I could never in good conscience support. She’s just a terrible jurist.
What M. Scott said. Doubly so.
I don’t know much about Clement, but Jones is morally unfit. Anyone who thinks, as she does, that a sleeping defense lawyer provides adequate counsel in a capital case simply does not belong on the Supreme Court, or any other court for that matter.
They’re now saying it’s NOT Clement.
Who is John Roberts?
M. Scott Eiland
Seeing how the apparent nominee has popped into this discussion out of nowhere, I am irresistably reminded of how Brooklyn was in an uproar over who would replace the manager of the two-time defending NL champion Dodgers (Charlie Dressen, the incumbent, had committed the fatal error of demanding a three-year contract from Walter O’Malley) in the winter of 1953-1954. After a great deal of speculation, the announcement was made, and fifteen minutes later a large sign was hanging in the window of a Brooklyn delicatessen: “WALTER WHO?” Twenty-three years later, Walter “WHO?” Alston was still managing the Dodgers, having led them to seven NL titles and four World Championships.
Woo Hoo! Cartwheels, great jublilation! I like the cut of his jib.
Time for an update.
He is 50 years old and has just over 2 years of judicial experience, having been appointed to the D.C. Ct. of Appeals in June 2003. He’s worked for Rehnquist, and the Reagan and Bush I Departments of Justice. Lots of experience practicing before the US Supreme Court.
A good choice, I guess. Lots of decent credentials but not a lot of published opinions. He can blow off his briefs as being written for the client and not being reflective, necessarily, of his own personal opinions.
Wikipedia write up.
Free Congress Foundation write up.
Solid Republican loyalty credentials. Ambiguous social conservative credentials. Should be interesting.
Once again Bush demonstrates his weak leadership. He had a chance to unite the country but once again chose not to. Too bad he couldn’t follow Clinton’s example. What a shame.
Oh stop; your crocodile tears are threatening to short out my keyboard.
Yeah, Ruth Buzzie Ginsburg is the residue of a strong, unifying leaderr. Snort.
Almost forgot: death spiral!!!
“Yeah, Ruth Buzzie Ginsburg is the residue of a strong, unifying leaderr. Snort.”
Flaunting your ignorance again, Rick. Orrin Hatch RECOMMENDED Ginsburg for the SC. Duh.
Two things, Rick.
One: Ginsburg WAS a unifying pick. Clinton consulted with Hatch on both his nominees. And Hatch recommended both Ginsburg and Breyer, and Clinton submitted them. Bush had a chance to reciprocate and didn’t. I actually don’t expect him to tender names from reid and then nominate them, but he pretty much blew everybody off.
Two: You need to come up with a new sign-off. The “cordially…” doesn’t really work when your name comes first.
Too funny,you lefties. With a docile Senate, it was a given Clinton was going to get an extremist on the court. Hatch merely pointed out that the President would run into Senate trouble with a Bruce Babbitt nomination, and suggested Ginsburg as an equivalent extremist who would sail through.
And specially for you, Senor Furioso: Smirkingly…
There goes Ricky. When the facts are inconvenient, re-write history. But then that appears to be the MO of this administration so you certainly have the role models for your strategy.
Do recount the True History for me, please, oh soulfully screen-named one. I’m all settled back and comfy awaiting the legend.
Simple. Clinton offered Bruce Babbitt to Hatch. Hatch recommended Ginsburg. Clinton agrees. Ginsburg sails through a united Senate.
No legend. Read Hatch’s book – it’s documented there. Unless you want to claim that Hatch is a Democratic hack.
Although given your preference for the bullying approach, I’m sure you feel that consensus is for weenies.
That’s what I recounted. Clinton wanted Babbitt most, but Hatch alerted him to problems that nomination would encounter. Hatch didn’t pull Ginsburg’s name out of thin air–she was on the Bubba short list.
Consensus and politeness are for weenies in Washington, which is why the pubbies are so tame. I do want them to bitch-slap (for once) the likes of Leahy and Shumer.
I’ll be gloating for years.
“Consensus and politeness are for weenies in Washington, which is why the pubbies are so tame. I do want them to bitch-slap (for once) the likes of Leahy and Shumer.”
How childish. Politics should be reserved for grownups who care about the best interests of the country and its people, not as an outlet for your stupidities.