Redstate

apparantly false.

Bummer I like Edith II much better.

I get bad vibes from Clement-just seems like the GOP has been burned every time they have gone for the stealth candidate without much of a paper trail to make the dems like them.

Kennedy and O'Conner were supposed to have strong conservative bonafides, and they are both wishy washy all over the place with no anchor to speak of.

This feels too much like a status quo appointment, and not what Bush promised.

The blog entry linked to now has an update - the information was sent out because the staffer was receiving a lot of requests for information about Judge Clement, nothing more.

Could be that the feeding frenzy starting last night over Clement has caused the interest as opposed to the White House causing the interest.  So the Edith II switch may still be a possibility.

I have an anti-climatic feeling after all this anticipation.  [/sigh]  Does anyone else?

I didn't actually expect him to choose a formalist like he promised.  Status quo or politically 'right' is what we're most likely to see.

I firmly expect to be underwhelmed by the selection when it finally comes.

This is probably going to be more conservative than O'Connor, but not quite Scalia/Thomas.  I can live with that.

I hope you're right. Obviously, this nomination means a lot to many conservatives. I found this interesting site, www.republicannomore.org, from another blog I read (Catholicae Testudines). It looks like the party could definitely be hurt if they fail to succeed here.

Too much for me ... need to get off and do some real work.

Specter does not appear to be part of any bait and switch (if one exists). The update just said the Specter's office did not initiate the sending out of info, but rather responded to inquiries about her past confirmation hearings.

If Mrs. Clement was a MAN she wouldn't even make a top-10.

She is simply not in any way qualified, and is yet another mediocre jurist who by virtue of her blandness makes it up to the top.

Bush has really failed us. Yet again.

All this time I thought it was the left that was going to be irrational on this choice.  That they needed a fight and would ignore the merits of the jurist because anyone that Bush wanted would be bad for the country.  Instead I am finding that its the conservatives that are ignoring the candidate and are just looking to show some muscle.  There is absolutely no reason to doubt Clement at this point- and just because she isn't a firebreather you are upset.  Just amazing.

I am so sick of reading stuff like what he posted

ask yourself this.  If you were the President, wouldn't you ask someone that you were about to appoint to a lifetime position what her views were about issues that are important to you?

I trust Bush enough to ask at least 3 or 4 potential nominees at least 10 questions regarding their views on: the 11th Amendment (how it should be interpreted), the 14th Amendment, "substantive due process", the "right" to privacy, the 2nd Amendment, the first amendment's protection of religious exercise, whether or not affirmative action is a legal form of racial discrimination, etc.

And I trust people to answer honestly.  Bush's dad was kind of hamstrung when he picked Souter.  He could've just nominated conservative after conservative and allowed the Senate to keep blocking his picks.  This would've hurt what he considered to be promising re-election prospects and opened the door for someone like Mario Cuomo to take over the White House (for those of you who still hate Clinton for what he did to the country, thank your Supreme Maker that Cuomo didn't become president).

I think he relied too much on the word of John Sununu (the elder) and William Loeb who convinced him that Souter was a constructionist at heart.  It was a gamble.  But then again, there's no way that the Senate in 1990 would've allowed a Bork, a Scalia, or even a Clement to get confirmed.  (Although Thomas made it, I think that the Dems who voted for him expected him to turn into Thurgood Marshall as soon as he had lifetime tenure.  See, sometimes the other side makes miscalculations, too.)

Trust Bush.  He would not sell out conservatives.  Not when he has 55 Republicans in the Senate and an American public that wants and expects him to nominate a Scalia-like conservative.

Give him bad info.  He tells a few "confidantes," they spread the word, etc.

She has been on the 5th Circuit for 4 years.  She is a conservative.  She graduated from a top-tier law school.  She clerked for a district court judge.  She was a federal district court judge for 10 years before she was promoted to the 5th Circuit.

You can't just come to a conservative website, call Bush's likely Supreme Court nominee "unqualified" without any justification for the pejorative, and expect to get away with it.

Bush has failed "us"?  Who is "us"?  He hasn't failed me.  He picked someone who will help to fix some of the mess that was left by O'Connor.  Unless you can explain why you consider Clement unqualified and how exactly Bush has failed "us" and who exactly "us" is, I'm not going to buy into your "us" club.  "Us" on this site means conservatives.  And Bush definitely has not failed us by picking a true conservative.

Aurel Stein has only been here since the 13th.  (A few weeks after O'Connor announced her retirement.)

He/she hasn't posted anything that looks like what a conservative would post.  Nor is he claiming to be a moderate.  Or even a liberal.

He/she wants us to think that he/she is a real conservative, upset because Bush has "failed us."

What he/she probably means is "Bush has failed to appease the liberals who voted against him last year."

This Stein-guy has no qualifications to try and pass himself off as a conservative.

It's like me going to democratic underground and posting that liberals everywhere should rejoice that Bush picked such a smart and reasonable nominee.  I wouldn't dare try to pass myself off as a liberal.

And I don't think that this guy is very convincing in his role as the "disgusted conservative" either.

"Us."  Please.

I think she is qualified, I have reservations about her, but I think she has the bonafides to be considered qualified for the court.

I think that is an unfair characterization.