Well, I guess that is one solution to the Rove/Plame rumblings in the press- move up the unveiling of the Supreme Court nominee. “Look- A rabbit!”
As my Republican credentials are, as of late, not very good, I feel obliged to follow the meme shift and do my partisan role to aid the cause. As such, I offer you this indictment of Gonzales by Gene Healy:
Gonzales’s theory of limitless executive power resurfaced in what have come to be known as the “torture memos.” An August 2002 memo prepared under Gonzales’s direction argues that the 1994 statute Congress passed prohibiting torture infringes on the president’s constitutional power as commander in chief: “Congress can no more interfere with the president’s conduct of the interrogation of enemy combatants than it can dictate strategic or tactical decisions on the battlefield.” If the president deemed torture necessary to achieving America’s war aims, the memo argued, then Congress would be powerless to restrain him. It’s a theory that echoes Richard Nixon’s infamous statement in a 1977 interview with David Frost: “Well, when the President does it, that means it is not illegal.” Asked about the memos in his confirmation hearings for attorney general last January, Gonzales refused to recant his view that the president can ignore the law.
It’s not clear what we can glean from Alberto Gonzales’s tenure on the Texas Supreme Court. But his record as a top administration official is clear: he is altogether too much a company man, all too willing to waive constitutional limits in support of radical expansions of executive power. He should not be allowed to serve on a Court that will in the future be called upon to check that power.
In other nominee news, Atrios says that CNN is reporting (no CNN link yet) the nominee will be Edith Brown Clement. A little bit about Judge Clement from Confirm Them:
Clement is known to be pro-defendant in civil rights cases and is like O’Connor on business issues, which means that conservatives will be pleased with her on those issues. There is no indication that Clement takes an expansive reading of the Commerce Clause and every indication that she does, in fact, take the opposite view.
Sources close to the White House tell me that the pick has been made, but are not giving me the name. Third party sources who would be among the first to know are saying that there is every indication that Clement is the pick. In fact, we are beginning to see conservatives get on board and shift from Edith B. Clement having too thin a papertrail to her being “with us.”
No one knows how Clement would vote on the ultimate issue — is abortion a medical procedure subject to state regulation or a constitutional right. I am told that, with the pressing issues currently headed to the court, i.e. partial birth abortion, parental notification, 24 hour waiting periods, the Solomon Amendment, etc. — conservatives do not need to worry about Clement, they need to worry about Justice Kennedy and whether he will continue heading left.
I have been told by multiple parties that, though we know little about Judge Clement’s leanings on social issues, we should make no mistake that her family background is conservative and that her husband is a “loyal” conservative. Also, I’ve gotten a few emails and phone calls from a few particular people who would know who all say that we should trust the President on this pick. I also know that lawyers in my home state of Louisiana like Clement and do think she is conservative.
It seems that Clement is not the ‘safe’ pick the base wants, and could be the ‘surprise’ they fear. Should be interesting.
BTW- Judge Clement is only 57, which is a definite plus. This confirmation battle is going to be so bloody that the younger the candidate the better, as a lengthy term will make the political capital expended seem worth it.
Mr Furious
My money is still on Janice Rogers Brown.
Jay
Its giving me a headache all the bickering and whining from the left.
DougJ
I would rather he nominate a justice more in the Scalia mold, but I think that I — and most other conservatives — find Ms. Clement acceptable.
To suggest that Bush did this to deflect attention from the Rove tempest in a teapot is laughable. The public couldn’t care less about “superspy” Valerie Plame and her foibles. The SCOTUS nomination, by contrast, goes to the very heart of the most important issues this country is facing.
Tim F
Heh, because you know the right just took a long, slow drag and let it out easy when Gonzales came up as a candidate.
Vlad
Speaking as a lefty: She’s not my favorite, but she doesn’t seem completely insane, so as long as nothing horrible comes up during due diligence, I’ll be willing to give her the benefit of the doubt. I’m OK with a conservative, as long as she’s rational and consistent, with well-grounded opinions.
JonBuck
All I really care about at this point is a judge who will rule on the basis of the law and legal precedent.
eileen from OH
Nah, it ain’t gonna be bloody. At least for right now, doesn’t look like there’s that much to hang a fight on. It could get bloody on the Religious Right side, but the Dems will take her (again, unless something shows up.)
But re: strategy. So, to change the subject from Rove, it’s time for a SCOTUS pick. You would think that if Bush really wanted to distract from Rove, that NOW would be the time to pick a fight by putting up a extreme righty. All hell breaks lose, pundits and partisans mud wrestle, cats mate with dogs, etc., But, if I’m right, Clements will be a big non-story, will sail through easily and not provide that much copy for those who prefer stories about pretty blonde spies and Evul Geniuses. (I really think there ought to be a way to work a shark attack in there somewhere.)
As a political strategy, I’m thinkin’ it’s kinda, well, dumb. Plus, it’s being done real clunk-ily. Not Rovesquian. Which makes me think that maybe EG is in some kind of internal dog house. Or else he’s been preoccupied -like worrying whether an orange jumpsuit will make his ass look bigger – to get involved.
eileen from OH
Steve
I suspect this is a trial balloon, just like every other name that gets leaked.
I don’t see any reason that the confirmation battle is guaranteed to be bloody. It depends who the pick is.
Christie S.
I haven’t done much research on Clement myself, but from what I’ve seen, I can’t see where the Dems would get bent out of shape about her. Unless there is something lurking deep in the background that comes up during discovery, then a nominee like this should have pretty clear sailing.
Hmm…of course the far right folks might chose to dis her based on the ‘eh, not so bad’ opinion of the far left; it would certainly be nice, though, if this government could accomplish ANYTHING that didn’t break down into bullshit maneuvering and posturing.
Christie S.
ack…I really miss the preview screen. I catch my typos there. ‘Choose’ not ‘Chose’.
Jay
What will be truly interesting is seeing Senators who voted to confirm her appointment as an appeals court judge (she was confirmed 99-0), argue that she’s not fit for the Supreme Court.
Jay C
John: why the prediction of a “bloody” confirmation fight over someone like Judge Clement? AFAICT from a quick browse, she’s a decent enough judge, a conservative (NOT, note, a crusading right-wing zealot): moreover, a woman, an easy confirm (99-0? who was dozing??), and from the South to boot. It seems like Bush taking the easy-road strategy on his first SCOTUS vacancy will pay off handsomely in good PR for the Preznit and the Administration. Of course, the far Left (whose opinions are meaningless) will gripe (but then, they gripe at everything); and the far Right (whose opinions have a bit more weight) will have a conniption fit that Bush hadn’t nominated James Dobson or someone, but for an Administration which has been having bad news days for months now, a little touch of domestic “statesmanship” will probably “hit above its weight”. Whatever “trouble” nominating Edith Clement (or someone like her) will cause, it won’t be in the Senate.
Yago
truck campers
blowjob
free blowjob movies give a perfect blowjob gagging blowjobs