Redstate

This is almost as exciting as finding out who the new Pope was going to be.

Almost.

I hope this doesn't break before tomorrow afternoon.  I was supposed to tell my boss ahead of time who the nominee was going to be.  She was fairly impressed that I called the O'Connor retirement before the MSM.  Little does she know it's all because of Red State :)

So how is O'Connor on business issues?  Expansive view of "interstate commerce" and narrow view of "public use?"

If Bush's new appointee won't stand in the way of the ever-expanding commerce clause, I'll be disappointed.

She is a member of the Federalist Society

...then why did we bother to vote?

All that grass roots effort for someone the Dems like?

GottaBeKiddingMe.

I don't feel like we know enough about her.  And she doesn't have a known pedigree.

Somebody make me feel better about her.

I agree that an expansive Commerce Clause jurisprudence is not so good - it would actually be a failure.

I might not be so against Schumer's plan to ask questions about her position on various issues - I'd like to flesh her out a little more.

Everything I've read says that she is more of an unknown quantity than many others on the list. Some please, please make me feel good about her. We need to get someone on there who is a smart rational defender of the constitution in the mold of Thomas or Scalia. Why would Bush pick a nominee who leaves any doubt? There are a multitude of potential nominees out there who leave no question about their judicial philosophy.

I was burned once way too badly with Souter.  Bush 41's only redeeming quality is he gave us Thomas, but boy did he blow Souter.

I want somebody whose positions are pretty clear, not some dark horse chosen because it makes Specter and the dems happy.

I don't know, and I don't understand this.

I am afraid we are gonna get burned again despite assurances that we aren't.

Gregg gave all kinds of assurances for Souter and look at what we ended up with there.

Her only saving grace at the moment seems to be she is a member of the federalist society, but I am not feeling happy.

I want someone who believes in a MILDLY expansive commerce clause, that's just me..and thatn's not necessairly liberal.  I just think that you CAN make a case for a mildly expansive commerce clause also being conservative.  i wouldn't want someone who felt it wasn't at all expansive, if that makes sense.

in a mildly expansive commerce clause.  just a thought.

That they won't leap en masse off of the Capitol.

Everybody calm down.

This is not the Hatfields v. the McCoys.  This is the way politics has been played for hundreds of years.

The Dems knew they were going to lose this fight.  They probably just wanted someone who has less of a paper trail so that there's a glimmer of hope that Bush could be wrong about her along with someone who wouldn't humiliate them by reminding everyone of the Gang of 14, like Owen or Rogers-Brown.

So the smartest thing to do politically was to find a committed originalist with no paper trail who was low-key enough that she'll make all the senators feel fuzzy inside as they confirm her.

And then she votes with Rehnquist and Thomas and Scalia.

That's politics.  It's not about how good it would make you feel to see Ted Kennedy implode on live TV while Janice Rogers-Brown talks about the socialist revolution.  It's not about rubbing it in at your office that your guy won the election.  It's about results.  And who cares how you get the results, as long as the results are realized?  

Maybe this is because I'm an inside-the-beltway person, but I really feel good about this pick.

Well, I've been in the camp of those who think we don't know enough about Clement, but if she's like O'Connor on business issues, I think that's a good thing.  O'Connor's been good on the economic and federalism stuff.  For example, not only did she side with the conservatives in all the 5-4 sovereign immunity and commerce clause cases, but she also dissented in the recent commerce clause case (Raich) and the property rights case (Kelo).  The bigger problem with O'Connor has been on "social" issues.

is a committed originalist, if there isn't a papertrail.

Maybe it is that whole darkhorse Souter thing that makes me not trust a nominee who doesn't have much of a paper trail, but I don't like the feeling of having to just trust somebody on this.

Keep in mind that he knows her very well.  We may not, but perhaps he does.  It's not like he just picked her name out of a hat.

O'Conner is wishy washy and all over the place, but she is generally consistent on the non social issues stuff.

He has appointed and fought for justice after justice, appointing solid conservatives to the bench.  Maybe he LIKES the fact her paper trail isn't as big an dmaybe ITS NOT big for a reason (like she knew this was coming).  I, for one, trust W.  This isn't Bush 41, this is Bush 43, and it would be nice if people could breathe and give him the benefit of the doubt.  I trust W, until he proves me wrong.

would I be happy if it were Jones, so I could be sure?  Yeah, I suppose.  But, if Bush is confident with her, then I am.

And also, one other note--she doesn't have to agree with us on every little issue to be a good pick.  We probably disagree over this issue or that issue.  

The key issue to me is life and religious issues.

maybe if there wasn't all of that Gonzalez talk I could be more in your camp, but I admit I like the papertrail.

Harry Rosenberg, former U.S. Attorney in New Orleans

    * 'She is a hard-working judge,' and, '[s]he has been impartial as a jurist. She has been thorough and, most importantly, she is a judge who interprets the laws rather than creates them.' Mr. Rosenberg also said, 'If someone were to examine her track record before the Court of Appeal, she would have a stellar record. She is very careful and exhaustive in examining the law before she writes an opinion.' The Baton Rouge Advocate, Thursday, May 10, 2001.

    * 'She is a person who strictly adheres to the Constitution or the rule of the law rather than crafting new laws.' Texas Lawyer, May 14, 2001.

Harvey Koch, Partner at Koch & Rouse in New Orleans

    * 'She's in charge but in a very genteel manner -- an iron fist in a silk glove. She is very deliberate, and she weighs all of the issues.' Legal Times, May 14, 2001.

Jim Wright, Partner at Jones Walker Waechter Poitevent Carrere & Denegre in New Orleans

    * 'You leave her courtroom feeling like you were treated fairly.' Texas Lawyer, May 14, 2001.

What do you consider "mildly expansive" in this context?  I believe there's a lot of room in the Commerce Clause, but I don't agree with the fact that just about anything Congress does seems to be permitted to fall within it.

For one - the aggregation concept is ridiculous. And the contortion that occurred to justify under the Commerce Clause congress prohibiting private restaurants from discriminating (I do not justify discrimination, but using the Commerce Clause there rather than say the 13th Amendment effectively created a Commerce Clause big enough to justify the regulation of just about anything).

That's what I'd like to see - the Commerce Clause become an actual limit on Congressional Power rather than the catch-all justification for everything that the feds want to regulate.

much of the Gonzales talk was media created, not WH created.  Bush was merely responding to questions about Gonzales, that's all.  

You may get Gonzales one day, but it will only be if we get to #3 or #4, which would be either Ginsburg or Stevens, most likely, and that woudl actually be a shift to the right, so even though he may not be perfect, he would shift the balance.

The key here with O'Connor is that she's with us on some things and not on others, so the key in shifting the balance is finding a conservative--who in the eyes of the public gives room to pick another conservative.  

I know we'd all like to think Bush could just pick whoever and have an easy time, but there are politics to be considered, especially considering we may get 1-3 more picks.  I think the mods in the Senate KNOW that Bush wants to pick a conservative but they must have a way to justify it to their consituencies.  So, picking someone who doesn't exactly have a record jumpiong out screaming "conservative" might be a good thing, if we otherwise know she is a conservative.  I know that's "risky" , but it may be the best strategy in the end.

W knows her a lot, from what I read, and trusts her if he's going to appoint her.  And, again, even if we find down the road she rules in a way we dont like on X case, if she rules with us on 90% of the Y cases, that's a good thing.

her full name is Edith Brown Clement, but she goes by Joy?

and popped over the the confirmthem.com website.  They're subdued, but optimistic.  That's a good sign to me.  Also, being a member of the Federalist Society is an impressive conservative credential in my book.  If this is the nominee, I'm cautiously optimistic to very pleased.  The lack of a paper trail is both a disadvantage and an advantage, but members of the Federalist Society tend to be those with strong originalist stances (I'm pretty sure).

Wouldn't YOU? :)

don't want to look like an idiot.

I just know there are some conservatives who place states rights before anything else, to the extreme.  As in, they believe in an extremely limited commerce clause in which the gov't doesn't have thea bility to regulate anything.  

I am sympathetic to that view but also acknowledge that today, most things are interstate commerce, and that the gov't, in some cases, does hhave the right to regulate it, and in some cases, should.

That gets to my final point, and that is the concept of separation of powers.  I believe that in most cases, that interstate commerce clause would allow the gov't to regulate, but that doesn't mean it SHOULD--however, that decision should be made in the legislature.

However, I also agree there are limits, as if something is legitimiately and clearly local in focus, the fed gov't doesn't have a right to regulate it.  But, some issues are more merky than that, and that's where I side with the legislature deciding.

I generally reject single issue voting, but with tht supreme court---we all know it's all about Roe.  The Dems will try to get a stance out of her.

As for myself, I dont know enough about her.  But I would have much rather gone for Garza or Edith Jones.  In fact, until the announcement-my money is still on Garza.

I'm sick of Souters.  No more Souters.

She ain 't No  Ruth Bader Ginsburg, thats for sure!  Most American's would find it hard to believe she is the monster the Dems are going to paint her as because this is NOT the face of a monster.  

But I didn't wanna be the first one to say it.

She looks sorta like O'Connor back when she was younger.  The more the American people relate her to O'Connor, the harder it will be for the Dems to put up a fight.

And then she gets on the Court and votes with Scalia and Rehnquist and Thomas.

I'm fairly happy with the pick, if this is indeed a true rumor...I think it's a smart move to go with another woman. I hope he does announce tomorrow, God knows, anything to suck some air out of that Rove story...

Clement has been a Circuit Court judge for 4 years.  Before that, she was a District Court judge for 10 years.  Can she really have no paper trail?

I'd almost be just as worried if she had no paper trail as if she had a mushy paper trail.

After 14 years on the bench she should have a pretty clear group of positions - at least enough that her positions could be discerned.

I just hope some of those who had their heart set on someoen else (I wanted Jones) don't go off the deep end because they dont know Joy as well as others may.  Also, again, if she differs with us on ONE issue but is with us on NINE, that's a good thing.

My big issuees are life and religion, to others it may be states rights or something else.  We'll see how she does.

I thought I break the ice on her looks.  

I have read a liitle about her and like what I see so far.  

I posted a while back on a long ago thread that I thought Rehnquist knew O'Connor was coming and so he's waiting til the new pick is a slam dunk or confirmed before gettign out.  He may be frail and in poor health, but Rehnquist is no dummy.  I think he knows it would be best (and I agree) for W to get one at at a time rather than a total frenzy over 2-3 picks, especially if he thinks that Stevens may go with him in the end.

To me, assuming that this gal is a conservative yet won't get a HUGE fight, sets up a Rehnquist replacement perfectly to be a solid Rehnquist clone.

and that does play a role in the eyes of the public...I think .  (that sounds bad but its true, male or female, I think...lets be honest, Bolton's image doesnt help him)

Almost entirely, actually.

Rehnquist knows that Stevens is lurking behind him, waiting for him to retire so that he can tag along.  Stevens knows that if he retires along with a conservative, Bush may have to give Democrats a package deal.  Renny didn't want to make that deal more complicated by having three vacancies at once.

I suspect Roberts will be the new CJ.  He's basically a 50-yr old Rehnquist.  I can't imagine Dems putting up much of a fight.

The real nuclear war will occur over the Stevens pick.  Unless Bush does play ball and pick an O'Connor type, knowing that the Court will still shift to the right.  A lot of conservatives will be angry, but the alternative may be a Borking.

If Scalia gets bored and leaves, Luttig or Alito is the obvious replacement.

If Souter or Ginsberg leave, all bets are off.

Neither did Borks

...will be confirmed. She will. I mean, can you see Ralph Neas, Leahy, and Schumer seriously trying to suggest that Edith Clement wants to put Condi Rice back on the plantation?

(.....sound of crickets....)

Well, okay, I guess they'll try. I mean, I suppose they'll have to suggest, seriously, that Clement subscribed to The Fiery Cross at one time in her life.

Anyhoo, the question isn't about this justice. It's about Rhenquist's replacement. What's the Over and Under on Luttig getting Rennie's seat? Any takers?

real fight will not be O'Connor or Rehnquist, but #3.  That's why I think Bush is smart to get a solid conservative who won't have a huge (maybe mild) fight with the O'Connor pick, and then an easy 1 for 1 with Rehnquist.  You don't want to have a huge fight now knowing another would come.

Bush will have a real choice when it comes to replacing Stevens.  It all comes down to Roe V Wade (lets assume clement would rule with us) for both sides.  Everyone knows if we get to 5 conservatives, solid conservatives, the court is "ours".  I think he'd hold off on Gonzales til #4 (I think we'll get ginsburg AND stevens by the end of his term, and I think W knows that too), at least I hope so...I think we'll get him, eventually, though.

I really do not think he'll go with an O'Connor to avoid a borking...because he would get borked by conservatives too.  I think he'll be very creative in such a choice.  Hatch maybe?

....anyone saying, "she is a strong conservative thinker who believes the Constitution is settled law" or something to that effect.  That means we don't have the best pick.  I am rather frustrated at the President.  He needs to take on the Dems in the Senate and make a pick which is more to the liking of the base.

Seems like a bad move to me.

I think I've read that Roberts is close to Rehnquist and I think that pick is as slam dunk as any.  Just my two cents though.

Luttig would be held back in case Scalia left.  

Remember, in picking someone you've got to remember other picks you might have.  

• Clement has positives and a negative. I've variously seen that she comes from a "good family" (which I assumed meant they're all Republicans), of course the Federalist Society, the quotes from law sources, young, attractive, etc.
• But is she anti-Roe? I'm not sure its that simple. Depending on the composition of the Court, the nature of the prevailing opinion could be quite different; it's not a matter of simply upholding or simply overturning.
• Safe choice politically and probably strategy*
• I'm not sure a huge battle isn't good for Bush, so I reserve judgement on the idea of taking the easy road

and as talked about below, the big fight will be with #3, if its Stevens or Ginsburg...why have two huge fights if you cano avoid one with a solid conservative?

I think we have a case of some people looking to be dissapointed.  Don't be unless you have a clear reason.

Yes, someone like Hatch or another sitting senator.

Or some off-the-wall judge who is hard to pigeonhole but who is a committed federalist.

I don't know much about him, but Michael McConnell probably has the paper trail and personality to confuse senators so much during confirmation that nobody would know where he stood until he was already seated.

If McConnell is a no-go, then someone like him.  Someone who sort of defies the conventional labels but can still be counted on.

That sounds good, but we are not hearing anything about her strong conservative credentials.

I read some things on him that gave me some pause.  Some things on regulationg polygamy and such.  He seems a little off the wall.  I dont think we'll see him.

...understand this, and will go for the Borking now, to try to throw a monkey wrench into things? Were I Ralph Neas, that's what I'd do.

If I'm Neas, I'm fighting a rearguard action all the way to Moscow. Why retreat pell mell when you can stage a fighting retreat. If you're a lib, it makes no sense to do anything other than inflict maximum pain on Bush.

Every day is confimation day on the Russian Front!

but, if W thinks he has a solid 65-70 votes, that's not as big of a fight as if he was scratching to get 50.  

Remember, assuming Clement would overturn Roe, that still makes it 5-4 pro-roe.  the dems and mods know this.  the big fight will be on Stevens.  That's where Bush may have to scratch to get 50. (I think he'd get an up down vote on anyone, eventually)

That's the problem with academics like McConnell, they've forgotten what the real world is like.  

Did you hear that Reid gave the green light to Sen. Crapo of Idaho?  I wonder what that was all about.

...is officially dead, as of tomorrow. Media efforts to beat the dead horse will end the minute POTUS walks out with Clement.

Someone tell Krempasky and Leon.

for replacing a liberal justice.

I work a job overnight anyway, but I am not tired righ tnow, as I usually am.  I just find court stuff fascinating, partially because it is mysterious.  I am riveted into this court stuff.  Anyone with me? :)

This is all my fault.

P. S. I'm more sick of this story than anyone, I promise you. I'm perfectly happy to let it take the back seat until it's revealed that a major media organization sat on exculpatory evidence, all the while throwing gasoline on the fire. Then, it's back to the front page.

that a Senator would be used to replace Stevens.  

some of the issues surrounding privacy and terrorism?  Or was that Craig?  Or both perhaps.  

There is a current of thinking that is developing among some liberal writers that Roe, among other actions of the Court, has seduced the Donk party into a reliance on the judiciary instead of the legislature. In short, the Dems have become enamored of authoritarianism. These liberal writers assert that the Dems have to drop Roe like a bad habit to return to the mainstream of American politics.

It may be that within a few years, Roe becomes less totemic than it is today. As it stands now, Roe is Holy Writ within the Donk Party. I suspect it won't be for ever, however.

When the news breaks that Bill Keller sat on the evidence that could have cleared the Sith Lord, I want you to put it on Page One. More than anything else, I want to see the New York Times embarrassed and held up to riducule for the cheap propaganda outfit that it is.

That I can see you breaking your oath to avoid any news about Young Joe Wilson and his Jedi Mind Tricks. Please.

and I just think, roe or no roe, that if Clement is the pick, and is conservative, it goes like this:

conservatives:

Scalia, Rehnquist (and replacement), Thomas, Clement

moderates:

kennedy

moderate liberal:

breyer (he doesnt' seem as bad as the others, he sometimes moves one slot to the left)

liberals:

stevens, souter, ginsburg

With that picture, if nothing changes, we probably get good rulings on partial birth, affirmative action, commandments, and a couple of others (though not on imminent domain).  But, they still have 5 on the issues kennedy goes with them on.

When we get to 5 on the conservative side, it goes to a 5-4 , and 6-3 on others.  that's why the big fight goes there.  

i think gonzales will be pick #4.

If I had to wager now:

#1 Clement

#2 Roberts

#3 (if its Stevens) Hatch or Cornyn

#4 (if its ginsburg) Gonzales

Um...as noted on the original post, the Clement nomination is still unsubstantiated rumor. It's a little early to proclaim the Rove scandal dead, though I'm sure it plays a role in encouraging the President to move quickly on the choice of his nominee.

Anyway, long-smoldering scandals have a way of dying down and popping back to life, especially if any indictments are handed down.

i see bush out front with joy tomorrow. :)

It takes a LONG time for one to throw ones religion out the door.  Even longer for jane and joe 6-pack to believe that you have.  It will be at least 20 years before that happens.

Is it too much to ask that someone at least raise the issue that Clement is a rather undistinguished legal thinker? Isn't it kind of sad that we're not even considering the possibility that maybe the best choice for the Supreme Court might be someone acknowledged as a giant of the law - someone like Richard Posner? Rather than someone who looks nice and shares our ideological preconceptions (or so we all fantasize, in our different ways)?

If Clement is the one, and "the Dems are on board" - it will be interesting to see the votes, especially if the MoveOn-type groups go ape.  Lots of Dem senators looking to run for president - and Yea votes on any nomination won't go over well.

I'm interested to see how they turn out.  Biden and Feingold sit on Judiciary.  On the full vote I'm watching Clinton, Bayh, Feingold, Biden, Kerry.  I will assume that the "Red State Democrats" up in 2006 will all vote Yea especially if she's going to cruise through with over 60 votes - no sense arming your opponent for nothing.  Though I could be wrong.

exactly the same thing.

Clement is an attractive face and in the media, that matters.

Can you point to any of the current members of the Court and say that, at the time they were nominated, they were "giants of the law"?

I can't.  For however much I dislike her, Ginsburg is probably the closest to being a "legal thinker" prior to her nomination.

The rest weren't particularly "distinguished."  Rehnquist was working in the SG's office.  Kennedy was nothing special on the 9th.  O'Connor was plucked from obscurity.  Scalia didn't catch any attention for his positions in 1986.  Thomas was on the DC Circuit for 2 years, prior to which he was with the EEOC.  Souter.....enough said.  Breyer?  Stevens?  Going back in time, Powell, White, Brennan - none had a background that indicated "great thinker."

This isn't a job that goes to "great legal minds."  That's not the qualification for the job.  Sometimes thinking about the law so much (enough to make you a great legal thinker) causes you to wind up with somewhat borderline ideas of what law "should be" rather than what it is.  

I'd like to hear who people thing the "great legal thinkers" are.  Posner?  Easterbrook?  Who else?  What pool of people are we talking about?  What makes someone a "great legal thinker?"

What about the Amicus Brief 36 news orgs. filed with the court.  NYT, ABCNBCCBS, CNN, FNC, Et Al filed a brief saying no laws had been broken so the court had no reason to jail Miller or Cooper.  

NRO had an article today about it.  THE MEDIA GOES TO COURT ... AND SINGS A DIFFERENT TUNE (9th paragraph)

Media's Brief is linked in the article

plus several others who are not with the kerry crowd.  

Bayh will be interesting.

to me...

you put the best people on the court or be remembered as fool for your picks as Eisenhower and Pops Bush are.  

he can't assume he'll have any more picks - every one should count, no throwaways for PC reasons.

Luttig is a very smart, engaging judge, as I can attest to having argued in front of him.  He'd be very good.

I guess Rehnquist is calling the shots, though.  He'll just not retire unless he gets his clerk on.

If I were Bush, though, I wouldn't play politics because nobody cares who you put up.  People vote on macro issues like war and deficits and unemployment.  Most of the people that voted for Bush probably can't pick out Canada on the map or name 5 founding fathers.  Same goes for the other side.  

He should know that he can get anyone w/o a scandal through.  

But, he's the President.  As much as I regret voting for him three times, once in the primaries, it is his choice.  I hope that if he gets 3 picks that he at least uses one for a truly intelligent non-hack to write some good opinions and give another viewpoint alongside Thomas.  Thomas is very good but even he missed the true originialist take in Kelo - which is that the 5th doesn't apply to the states at all, so, in fact, Kelo wasn't wrongly decided, only wrongly reasoned.  

I think it should be Luttig, Kozinski and Brown.  If you get a 4th, throw up Ron Paul as your non-judge.  Then you'll get an originalist court - if that is really what the GOP wants....

Remember, it's the compromisers, not Reid/Boxer/Kennedy, who control the balance of power.

If they agree that Bush's nominee does not have "extraordinary" problems, then the filibuster won't work, and the majority will carry the day.

And if even Specter is on board, then the majority will vote to confirm.

I think Bush will be lucky if he gets three.

Unless somebody dies or something-I don't see more than three picks.

but I sense this might be a case of W sleeping on it before deciding, otherwise I think we'd get something more definitive than a rumor.  I have a feeling its between the Ediths and that Clement may be the leaner, and that Specter was summoned as an update.  I could be wrong, it could be decided.

be #4 if we got there.

If you're a lawyer or law student, you MUST join.  Even if you're not, it's a great idea to join.  The best lectures, debates, workshops, practice groups, etc.

www.fed-soc.org

I didn't realize Scalia's prowess wasn't acknowledged before he joined; I'm too young to remember that appointment. I had thought he and Ginsburg were the sharpest knives in the set. But yeah, the lack of other names with great intellectual heft on the court, before they were appointed, seems to me to be part of the problem. I have to say upfront that I'm a liberal - I don't want to be a stealth poster here - but I acknowledge with the entire legal community that Scalia is an extraordinary intellect who deserves his place on the Court. But Clarence Thomas is just an embarrassment. He never asks questions; his opinions are never looked to by anyone, and it's an open secret that they're entirely written by his clerks. The only reason he's up there is because he's black and conservative. His low caliber undermines the Court's authority, and it's a symptom of an Ameriacn political culture which is now so viciously partisan that it's losing the ability to maintain competent and universally respected national institutions.

And Bork reminds me of C. Everett Koop.  Those two could be the president and vice president of the weird beards club.  (J. Michael Chertoff would like to join.)

This SCOTUS timing (if accurate) is good for Dems:

1. The Rove leak machine is slowing down (has anybody in the Grand Jury room NOT leaked one tidbit yet?)  In addition, since some of the pro-Rove leaks have contradicted publicly by Cooper, it seems unlikely that leaker (cough, cough, Luskin) will be getting any more front-page inches on the NYT.
   
2. The 24x7 media is already tiring of McClellan's stonewalling: every 25 minutes there is a non-Rove question.  In two weeks, without more information, only Helen Thomas will be fighting th good fight against "We don't comment on..."
   
3. The timing of the appointment looks suspicious.  Tomorrow might have been the plan all along, but many Americans will smell (and reporters will mention in their stories) a Clintonesque Wag-the-Dog move to get Rove off of the front page.
   
4. Bush's SCOTUS nominations are the second most influential decisions (after going to war) he will make in office, and he is currently at the bottom of his popularity with both the public and Republican moderates.  Any other time in the last 5.5 years would have been better for the President to go to war over a nomination.  
   
5. The media, reacting to being mislead, is currently at the height of its ability to act as the unofficial opposition.  If Rove is eventually vindicated and blame pinned on some random CIA employee, there will be a media pull-back from criticism such as we saw post-Rathergate.  That would be the type of environment where a Luttig would have a good chance.  Right now, I think Bush just wants a compromise victory.
   
6. It's become obvious that nothing will happen with Plamegate until indictments are handed down. There is no way that Democrats could keep this story on the front pages forever in the absence of new developments (see #1), and Bush isn't going to fire Rove until its obvious that there will be legal problems.  Once the Grand Jury does its job, this will be Page A1 news again.  Of course, that might be 2006 at this pace...

It doesn't hurt the Democrats to fight a truly important political battle during this pause, since Bush's credibility has already been slashed, and that's not coming back unless Rove is "vindicated not indicated" or whatever Mehlman/Don King said on MTP.  While announcing soon might be a good tactical PR move, it might result in a less conservative nominee overall.

As for Clement, she has fiscal-Scalia social-Souter written all over her.  As a small-l libertarian, that would be fine by me.

is that you?

gedogenheid,

You did not have to tell us you are a Lib.  We can figure that out by your posts.  

Your statements on Thomas in your is what is just an embarrassment.  You sound just like Harry Reid.  God, you gotta get out more and make new friends.

points.

YOu do Thomas a disservice.

and his Thomas talking points

he/she find some black friends. He/she would soon learn they are not as stupid as he/she thinks/ assumes.  Two Peas in a pod, gedogenheid and Harry Reid!

The reason that some Dems will be on board is because it could have been Owen or Brown.

Here's a few things on Clement:

http://www.confirmthem.com/?p=752

Click the link in there that leads to PFAW not caring for her.

Clement voted WITH Planned Parenthood on this case to overturn a District judge in excluding them from funding:

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/tcr/files/tcr/media/3152005.xml

According the Planned Parenthood, she agreed "that separation requirements between the family planning services and the abortion services could not impose substantial obstacles that "frustrate" Planned Parenthood's ability to receive the funds."

Granted, this was just a funding issue and not a Roe related decision (I think).

First off, it doesn't say whether the panel was unanimous.  It could have been 2-1 with Clement the one.

Second, Keep in mind any lower-court judge who does his job and upholds Roe regardless of his personal views will be seen as voting with Planned Parenthood.

In this case, they claim that there was a federal law involved.  If the law didn't allow states to restrict the funds in this way, then a non-activist judge who thinks the law is wrong might have to enforce the law anyway.

So without knowing more, we can't say whether this case shows her as being for or against anything.

quite conservative.  From my interpretation the appelate panel was basically trying to give the state a way out (by creating two separate entities, one for family planning without abortion, which woudl receive fed funds, and one with abortion, that wouldn't)...otherwise, the court was basically saying it would be forced to rule the entire Rider 8 invalid because of the supremacy doctrine (because it would restrict a federal program, which the state has no right to do).

"As much as I regret voting for him three times"

I think we can all agree that Clements is better than any possible Kerry pick.

to point out that 95% of Americans** are not following nadagate.  Many of them will follow the SC nomination.  Heck, I'm a political news junkie and I don't even read MSM or RS articles on nadagate.  It's like the Kobe Bryant of politics.  No one cares.

**I made up this number.

Let's make this clear now: There is nothing extraordinary about this pick.  Thus the "Gang of 14" has no reason to allow a filibuster.  McCain, Graham, DeWine, and maybe Warner will most likely make that clear if Dems hint at a filly.  Landrieu and Nelson will definitely oppose a filibuster.  "The Deal" will easily usher this appointment through the Senate.

All of this is contingent on Clements being the nominee.

This is exactly the kind of pick that I feared -- an affirmative-action beneficiary, female with a blank slate.  This ruling, coupled with the courting that she will receive from liberal feminist legal groups, shows that she's going to be as bad as O'Connor on abortion.  The Rust standard was supposed to be quite deferential to the states and here, still, she was able to find a way past it.

Honestly, I'm beginning to wonder whether President Bush even cares about abortion.  I feel like I've been played for a fool.

the "Dems on board".

This doesn't necessarily mean that EVERY dem will be on board and I'm sure that Schumer will be a pain in the ** during the hearings, but all we need is most of the Dems to be on board and we're good.

1. There are numerous well-qualified, conservative candidates.  Choosing a woman in order to make it easier to get a more conservative candidate through is a no-brainer.
   
2. She has a track record.  She spent ten years at a federal district court before the few years at her present position at an appeals court.  Souter, in contrast, received his first federal appointment the same year he got his Supreme Court appointment.
   
3. If she HAD asserted her personal view over the supremacy clause and the Congress, she'd have been an activist no better than the Roe court.  To appoint someone who works that way would be a breaking of the President's promise.
   
4. According to DOJ's case for her, "She is a person who strictly adheres to the Constitution or the rule of the law rather than crafting new laws."
   
5. You can't claim the President has betrayed you until she's nominated, confirmed, and actually proves to be everything you say she is.  Don't have a fit until you've actually seen her in action.

Let Schumer act like a bulldog.  The more he looks like a raving lunatic the more ammo we have in the 2006 campaign hopper.  This is the man directing the Democrats' efforts - it would be great to run through sound clips of him and Teddy K. and Joe Biden attacking a perfectly reasonable nominee - especially if she/he gets 65 or more votes - during 2006 ads in North Dakota, Nebraska, Florida, West Virginia, and Washington (we can throw in a few Maria Cantwell's on that one).

both "9" and "5" are used quite often in math, and sometimes they are used together: "95".  

I believe it signifies a handful less than a hundred.

She is certainly not "well-qualified."  If anything, she is barely qualified -- an intellectual lightweight whose chief attribute is her gender.  The President needed to appoint a brilliant mind who can persuade future justices to vote with the originalist choice.  

She is not much of an originalist.  Obviously, the Founders would have not seen something as simple as denying funding to Planned Parenthood as an "undue burden" on abortion.

You may feel comfortable waiting for conservative nominees later, but I'm not.  When are these conservatives going to come?  I simply find it unconscionable that when one million babies are being killed a year that we are expected to wait.  This is our chance.

I spoke with several people I know in New Orleans and in Texas who regulalrly practice before the 5th Circuit. I was told that she is no less conservative than Jones. Two people I know knew her personally before she went on the bench, and assured me she was a person of great moral rectitude- one of them was particularly passionate about her character. I have known some of these people for decades.

I do not think that Roe would be over ruled outright by the Court at this point. However, there is a critically important parental notification law coming up this term, and the Federal partial birth aboortion act is going to be at the S. Ct. soon. Those laws can be upheld without formally overturning Roe, but as liberals have noted, Roe would be effectively gutted. For example, see Jack Balkin, a prof at Yale Law and a liberal supporter of abortion rights, at http://balkin.blogspot.com/2005/07/reverse-litmus-test.html

If everyone's keys were "life and religios" issues, we'd be in a lot of hooey.  Those issues are important to me also, but the one and only key that a SCOTUS justice should be concerned about is strict, originalist interpretations of the constitution.  As long as the SCOTUS will bind itself to what has actually been written in the Constitution, all other issues can be fought out in the US/State legislatures, where they should be fought.  

I am so tired of the "brilliant mind" requirement espoused by so many;  as well as the assumption that she doesn't have one, when the people professing this claim have no idea whatsoever as to her abilities or not.  It is really hard to take posts like this seriously.

why don't you execute your own legal mind and actually read the opinion.  It had very little to do with abortion.  IT had to due with the supremacy clause and a recognition of federal law on family planning funding.  She was actually trying to help the state create a way so no federal money would go to abortion, by my reading.  

I'm sorry if you can't take my post "seriously."  I did read the opinion on Findlaw and it is basically an opinion that bends over backwards to give instructions to Planned Parenthood about how to manipulate its operations on paper so that it can stay in the baby-killing business.

You also obviously don't understand how the Court works.  The Court is still a place where persuasion can occur.  Having a brilliant mind (along with an affable personality) is a key component to persuading mushy centrists to vote the right way.  O'Connor, Souter, and Kennedy did not have to be lost causes.  They could have been persuaded not to go to the darkside.

Your argument in favor of mediocrity has a strong-Roman Hruska feel to it and that argument has been mocked ever since it was made.

But what are you basing YOUR opinions of her on?  What cases of her's have you read?  What essays of her's have you read?

You've passed judgement on this woman based on nothing except the fact that you nothing about her.  

If you are still pining for Janice Rogers Brown then you are going to be disappointed.  No one as openly candid about her opinions as Brown is going to be nominated.   The one risk this administration has is if they try to fly to close to the sun and nominate somehow who will be flayed by the MSM as being an extremist.  If that happens not only will this nomination fail but any FUTURE nominations will be made under the shadow of this fight.  

If President Bush is smart he will go with the MOST generally palatable justice here because it would make things considerably easier for the 1-2 seats that are likely to open up.

O'Conner endorsed the concept of citing foreign legal decisions in some rulings of the Supreme Court.  There are two others who have indicated a similar philosophy, Breyer and Ginsburg.

Surely Judge Clement does not suffer from this legal mental defect.  We can take the court back, one position at a time.

Good riddance to O'Conner.  

the reports of him flying off the handle are easier to believe with that mad-scientist mustache, that much is true.

from how I read it, because it really had nothing to do with abortion.  You ignore the fact that family planning services are guaranteed by federal law, at the current time, and that no state law can interfere with that.  ABORTION FUNDING is not allowed under federal law but family planning is.  Therefore, she was attempting, along with the other two judges, to create a way so that the Texas rule could still be upheld by saying that there was room for a public, non-abortion area and a private, abortion-allowing area.  She wasn't trying to overrule the legislature or Congress, which is what I thought we wanted.

When she was nominated to the 5th Circuit, a substantial majority of the ABA Committee that rates nominees gave her a "well-qualified" rating.  A Minority said she was "qualified" (there are only three choices, well qualified, qualified, and not qualified).  So apparently the lawyers around seem to think well of her.

And why does someone need to be a "brilliant mind" to convince others to side with them, assuming she is not a "brilliant mind?"  Many would say Scalia has a "brilliant mind" and that hasn't made the mushy moderates vote with him regularly.  Plus, as the junior justice, she is not likely to be in a position to persuade anybody of anything.  The rest of them have all been there over a decade - what makes you think they're suddenly going to be awe-struck by a new member (regardless of stature) so as to see the error of their decisions?

bright side of this.

Although I am sure somebody out there was saying the same thing about Souter-and I don't think Dukakis could have made a better liberal pick for the court than Souter.

I am tired of all this "you must think ahead to future picks" well frankly some of you are talking like Bush is going to have 3 or 4 picks, I think he is lucky if he gets two, and all Bush appears to be doing with this pick is a maintaining of the statue quo on the court, not a shift, and that ticks me off.

Maybe she isn't going to be as bad as she appears, but I won't hold my breath if the dems and Specter are happy that means we have another O'Conner, and the last thing I want is another O'Conner.

I think that you're an optimist by nature.  I'm a pessimist.  The fact that this questionable ruling on abortion-funding is her only thing of note on the topic has to be seen as highly worrisome by anyone who is pro-life.

Ultimately, I'm with you on state's rights for everything except abortion.  That is a Holocaust-level phenomenon that must be stopped by any legal means possible.  In a perfect world, of course, it would be outlawed by constitutional amendment.  I see that possibility, however, as very far off.  

it is a pining for a strong originalist with a proven record, not some dark horse.

I am not into this idea that from now on the O'Conner seat must go to a woman-I would rather see the seat go to an originalist who we know for a fact is an originalist, not a maybe, might be, but hey Arlen likes her.

I realize some of you are arguing that the Luttig's and similar get considered later, but that is putting too many eggs in the "Bush will get lots of appointments" basket.  In reality Bush probably gets one more pick, possibly a third, I don't see anyone else retiring-at that point.  I just would like to have seen a stronger originalist pick this go around, not a pick that makes the Specters and Dems happy-that fact alone makes me worry.

She has written no essays and no opinions of any note.  Since 1991, she has been as useful to conservative causes as a potted plant.  I guess that the world is an oyster for an attractive blonde with nothing in her head.

I don't want Brown.  I want Luttig or McConnell.

If you think that President Bush will be able to appoint a outspoken hard core Conservative who has openly said that he/she wants to overturn Roe then I think you are simply ignoring political reality.  

Politically the GOP does NOT want to have a nominees that will be painted as wildly Conservative by the MSM.  The 2006 elections are only a year away and if the Democrats and MSM depict the Republicans of trying to put a radical on the bench that is going to hurt a LOT of Republican nominees.  Guys like Santorum may suffer a mortal blow with something like this.

As much as the Conservative base may want a hard core Conservative the majority of Americans are moderates who prefer, suprise!, moderation.  President Bush has been very effective at portraying himself as a moderate to these people. I don't see him sacrificing that image to push an ideologue.

if she is a Souter.  She, at worst, seems like a slightly better O'Connor.  And at best, she is a full-fledged Rehnquist.

from the rumors around here (which tend to often be true) it doesn't look like Luttig is going to get nominated at all at any point-unless we get down to pick 7 or 8 and that isn't gonna happen.

But a Luttig is somebody I would like to see on the court.

Only Santorum and Chafee could suffer in 2006 for the Rs, and Chafee will vote against any Bush nominee that Dems oppose anyway.  So really, there is only one potential loss politically.

Ds on the other hand have Senators facing re-election in ND, NE, WV, and FL in 2006 followed by SD, LA, AR, and WV in 2008.  These highly partisan issues benefit Rs in the medium run.