Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by KenH, Sep 25, 2005.
Edith Jones sounds good to me.
I may have missed it--how old is she?
I would rather have McConnell. I don't care about their race, gender or anything but what kind of judge they will be. If they are conservative and pro-life, then they are who should be on the court. I do, BTW, have a litmus test, and so do all those Christians who voted for Bush last year, whether they admit it or not, and Bush had better have a litmus test too.
In the Robert's hearings the democrats let their battleship mouths sink their rowboat minds, especially Biden, Turbin, Schumer, and Feinstein.
I hope Bush appoints someone who is clearly for overturning Roe v Wade. This issue had got to be addressed and soon.
I would be overjoyed if McConnell receives the nomination. I will be thrilled if it is Brown.
The other top contenders make me a little uneasy for various reasons. They just seem too Souter-like to me.
How about Garza? Didn't I read in his bio somewhere that he was strongly pro-life and conservative?
Very well written! I agree, also, that something has to be done now to stop abortion.
chick list cute title
I vote for one of the Ediths -- Jones or Clement. There are lots of good, wonderful, strong men, but I don't think a large part of the nation can't get past that the replacement of a woman should be a woman. I'm amazed that it's this way -- but it does seem to be a reality.
Can you just imagine the senate confirmation hearings for Janice Rogers Brown if she was nominated. That would be good TV. She would run circles around the dems just Roberts did.
Edith Clements is not pro-life. She is not worthy of this president's nomination.
How do you know she is not pro-life? She said Roe was settled law. So did Judge Roberts as appellate court judges can't overturn precedent.
She would probably have the best chance of the women listed of being confirmed due to a lack of a paper trail.
I don't think a large part of the nation can't get past that the replacement of a woman should be a woman. I'm amazed that it's this way -- but it does seem to be a reality.
I agree with both statements. Fortunately, there seem to be many well qualified candidates. My preference too, hands down, is McConnell, but the political reality is that conservatives will need to find an acceptable female Justice. It sure would thrill me to see McConnell nominated but it won't happen.
I hope that they didn't mean it when they called it "settled law" but it is still a phrase that I find disturbing, no less from Roberts than from Clements. Personally, I like a nominee with a paper trail. Makes it a more contentious battle, but it also reduces the likelihood of a Souter, while it risks the outcome of a Bork.
I believe that any general Supreme Court Ruling is settled law for the lower courts until it is overturned by a later Supreme Court decision.
As to lower courts, I do agree with you, and, to be fair, that was Roberts' perspective when he gave that opinion. Thanks.
That is the way I have always understood those comments...I hope we are correct about that in our understanding.
I apologize if I spoke without knowledge, but I remember the day Bush chose Roberts when we thought he was going to pick Clement hearing on Fox News the constant restrain about how Clement had made clear that she was pro-choice and it was more than just that one comment. If I have time, I will see if I can find that statement.
I hadn't heard that Clement was pro-choice, so Joseph's comment concerned me. I do NOT want a pro-choice justice. This is what I found:
Source: Joshua Frank
This is just a good article (brief descriptions) on some wannabees: Slate
Source: US News
I've read several pages now and I can't find anything that says she's explicitly pro-abortion. Lots of blogs say she is a "secret pro-choicer." I saw that phrase several times.
I found this on Edith Clement from a couple of months ago when it was rumored she would be Bush's pick that ended up being Roberts:
"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.
We don't know much else about Edith Clement. What we do know means the President has attempted to address Democratic concerns about replacing O'Connor with someone like O'Connor. We also know that Clement's background is more conservative than O'Connors. We also know that there is a political calculus on having a photogenic female judge without any harsh statements on file, the record of an enigma, and the family pedigree of a rock solid conservative pass through the Senate without the expenditure of an extrordinary amount of political capital."
Let's face it folks, a dyed-in-the-wool, openly pegged down nominee whom the Left knows definitively would overrule Roe in some fashion won't make it through the U.S. Senate. There are enough Republicans who would prevent the overriding of a filibuster and who may not even vote for such a nominee in the first place.
We will have to trust Bush's judgment and the nominee's overall approach to constitutional issues.
After reading link after link that NARAL supported Clement, I found this quote:
I agree with KenH here:
On the issue of settled law, doesn't that just mean that it is current but that it can also be overturned by the court if they decide to reverse themselves?
It is a shame that the court is divided up so that certain groups get certain seats. We have fallen so much for cultural diversity that we cannot get the best person but we have to get a certain type of person. To me that is the ultimate racial consideration--I would like to hire you and you are the best in the country but I have to hire someone who is purple for purposes of having one of every color of the rainbow.