[Rebar]

http://www.drudgereport.com/ebc.jpg
President Bush is close to making his first nomination to the Supreme Court, and Washington was abuzz with speculation Tuesday about Judge Edith Clement of the U.S. Court of Appeals in New Orleans.

Known as a conservative and a strict constructionist in legal circles, Clement has eased fears among some abortion-rights advocates. She has stated that the Supreme Court "has clearly held that the right to privacy guaranteed by the Constitution includes the right to have an abortion" and that "the law is settled in that regard."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/19/AR2005071900138_pf.html

So much for the Gonzalas hysteria. Anyone know her stance on the RKBA? This is the big one, we need a solid RKBA justice in there, and we'll need to fight hard for her if she is.

[longeyes]

Good to know everything is settled. Big relief.

One can hear the rusty wheels turning in the back corridors of the Casa Blanca...

[fourays2]

constructionists are usually in favor of the 2nd, right?

edited for spelling

[El Tejon]

Boo!

Luttig, Luttig, Luttig. :D

[Henry Bowman]

She was not on the 5th Circuit panel that decided Emerson (RKBA is an individual right, subject to any restriction deemed "reasonable").

[Kurush]

The word "conservative" in relation to judges often means that they consider previous court opinions more important than the actual constitution. The fact that she's pro-choice supports that interpretation. Here's a (http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions%5Cpub%5C03/03-21035-CR0.wpd.pdf) 2A decision she voted on, although she didn't write the opinion. Ugh, it doesn't look very good :( And here's (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=site%3Awww.ca5.uscourts.gov+%22clement%2C+circuit+judge%22&btnG=Search) a list of all the decisions she wrote. I am looking through them.

[CAS700850]

I read the opinion you've got linked. Looks to me that they side-stepped teh 2A issue by resting on precedent regarding convicted felons and firearm ownership. Unfortunately, it's not very telling for her 2A opinion.

[Rebar]

We do have to be careful. It seems liberal judges stay liberal, but the track record of "conservative" appointed judges is spotty. We do NOT want another Souter.

Here are some interesting comments, if you filter out the DU trolls:
http://www.confirmthem.com/?p=752

[Rebar]

It has been announced that the actual nominee will be announced tonight 9pm Eastern.

[woerm]

Our man of Silveira fame?

we need orginalists(?) aka Janice Rogers Brown!

[Rebar]

We'll find out in about seven hours.

I'm sure whoever it is, will be immediately attacked, in the most foul and vicious manner possible, by the liberal/left.

[Kurush]

I read through them. Most of the decisions she's written aren't very interesting but these two stood out:

Here (http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:mU912bARJpsJ:www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions%255Cpub%255C04/04-50138-CR0.wpd.pdf+site:www.ca5.uscourts.gov+%22clement,+circuit+judge%22&hl=en) is a decision she wrote that involves the 4th Amendment, where she rules that the police can use 2 rifles as evidence even though they were not part of the search warrant and were not in plain view.

And here (http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:jse9ORGYhdgJ:www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/04/04-60103-CV0.wpd.pdf+site:www.ca5.uscourts.gov+%22clement,+circuit+judge%22&hl=en) is a decision where she partially throws out claims of police brutality and false arrest from a case where a cop threw a guy in the back of his cruiser without arresting him. The air conditioning was off, and after bystanders complained that he was suffocating in the overheating car, he pulled the guy out and slammed the door on his head and foot repeatedly. He sustained injuries requiring surgery.

NOTE: I'm not a lawyer so don't take my reading of the cases as gospel.

I am less than impressed. According to some news sources, she's being considered because she's friends with Bush's roommate from Yale. :banghead:

[Sindawe]

I'm sure whoever it is, will be immediately attacked, in the most foul and vicious manner possible, by the liberal/left. Of course this will occur, its what they do.

Based on Kurush's comments, this individual does not look good.

[The Rabbi]

I am less than impressed. According to some news sources, she's being considered because she's friends with Bush's roommate from Yale.

Well, that didnt take long. Yes, that must be the only reason she was chosen. Thomas was chosen because he's black, she because of her Yale connection. If she had gone to Harvard instead she'd be waiting tables. Sheesh! :banghead:

Based on Kurush's comments, this individual does not look good.

You're going to base your entire opinion of her jurisprudence on summaries of three or four cases posted by someone who admits he knows beans about this? I dont know whether to be more afraid of the Left-bashing or the Right-bashing on this one.

[Coronach]

And here is a decision where she partially throws out claims of police brutality and false arrest from a case where a cop threw a guy in the back of his cruiser without arresting him. The air conditioning was off, and after bystanders complained that he was suffocating in the overheating car, he pulled the guy out and slammed the door on his head and foot repeatedly. He sustained injuries requiring surgery.

Uh...that's not how I read it.

The district court erred in concluding that Harris received ineffective assistance of counsel. The grant of habeas corpus is REVERSED and Harris’s sentence is REINSTATED. The case is REMANDED to the district court for further proceedings and orders not inconsistent with this opinion, if same are necessary.

The defendant (the cop) appealed his guilty verdict, saying he had ineffective counsel. The distric court agreed. Clement's court said that the district court was wrong, and reinstated the penalties on the officer.

Sounds pretty good to me.

Mike

[Sindawe]

You're going to base your entire opinion of her jurisprudence on summaries of three or four cases posted by someone who admits he knows beans about this? Now where did I say I based my ENTIRE opinion the the individuals fitness for the job on the snippets posted here? But if it pleases you to be afraid, who am I to deprive you of that joy?

[Coronach]

Furthermore, in the first case, the firearms were not in plain view, but the officers had a warrant to search the house. They were not looking for guns, but as long as the stuff they were looking for could be found in the places they looked, it is OK (think about it: I search your house looking for a Widget, and in a place where a widget could be found I discover a brick of cocaine, it is admissible). The case seems to center less on the warrant/no-warrant angle and more on whether or not the officers had reason to believe that the guns were evidence of a crime.

Now, I know this will be hard, but IGNORE FOR A MOMENT WHETHER OR NOT YOU THINK FELONS CAN/SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO OWN GUNS. That law has been written, the courts follow it, and until someone rewrites the law or makes an argument based upon RKBA and takes it forward, the courts will not and cannot address it. That is a non-issue here. He was a felon in possession of guns. That's illegal. Clement's court just said that the cops knew this, and when they searched his place for other stuff (pursuant to warrant) and found the guns, they knew they were evidence of a crime.

Still sounds OK to me.

Mike

[bg]

Aren't we kinda jumping the gun here ? We don't know who Pres.Bush
is picking yet.

[rick_reno]

I trust our President to nominate someone who will be the right person for the job.

[Biker]

Me too Rick. He is deserving of our complete and total trust. He hasn't steered us wrong so far. Right?
Biker

[longeyes]

By tonight we will know a lot more about Bush.

Maybe more than we want to.

Is there anyone on this forum who doesn't recognize that we are at a critical juncture in our national history and that changing the philosophical complexion of the Court is of the highest priority?

Bush can do the "politic" thing or he can do The Right Thing. I've heard him use that phrase more than once. Well, now is the time for him to stand and deliver. There are many candidates for this nomination with unimpugnable credentials. Why do we have to guess and speculate? Why? Which "slot" is the Brain Trust filling, which poll is it listening to?

[rick_reno]

This tells me more than I wanted to know...

Names of potential nominees circulating in Washington were largely women and included: Maura Corrigan, a judge on the Michigan Supreme Court; Cecilia M. Altonaga, a U.S. District Court judge for the Southern District of Florida; Mary Ann Glendon, a Harvard Law School professor; Judge Karen Williams of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va.; Janice Rogers Brown, recently confirmed by the Senate for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit; and Priscilla Owen, who was just confirmed for a seat on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

[Zrex]

I trust our President to nominate someone who will be the right person for the job.


LOL!

[fourays2]

some of you guys need to lay off the koolaid. I've seen plenty of things about Jorge Bush that scare the beejeebus out of me and have very little confidence in him doing the right thing.

[longeyes]

I think George P. Bush is the ideal nominee. He's young, goodlooking, speaks Spanish, is well-connected, and, I think, went to law school. If not, well, picky, picky...

[DonP]

"some of you guys need to lay off the koolaid."

I can't be sure, but I detected a whiff or two of sarcasm in some of those posts.

Most folks around here have a bone or three to pick with some of his decisions, myself included.

All that being said ... I'm still darn glad we are not discussing whether President Kerry was going to nominate Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein or Susan Estrich to the Supreme Court.

[Monkeyleg]

I believe the operative phrase in the article in the first post is, "Washington was abuzz with speculation"

Let's see who is actually nominated, and what that person's background is before having fits.

[Waitone]

She hasn't been around long enough to have a paper trail AND THAT IS PRECISELY WHY SHE OR ANY OTHER NOMINEE IS SELECTED. Given the impossibility of a well documented jurist showing up on SCOTUS this nominee is just a good as anyone else you can find at Pick 'n Pay.

I, for one, am disgusted at a process that specifically excludes known, qualified jurists. For all the fuss and feathers we are simply buyin' a pig-in-a-poke. We here at Gun Lovers Central can wax eloquent over the joys of a constructionist being nominated. The reality of the situation is Bush considers the Second Amendment to be a chip in his poker game of power. We may get luck, but it will most assuredly be done not by design. We know Bush will not affirmatively place someone pro-gun rights on the court. We also know that who ever is nominated will be an unknown quantity who has just promised Bush et al whatever it is they want to hear.

If you call me cynical you'd be right. :scrutiny:

[Dan from MI]

Looks like it won't be Clement (if ABC is to be believed....)

Maura Corrigan would be a good pick IMO.

Kozinski would be my top choice.

[The Rabbi]

Let's see who is actually nominated, and what that person's background is before having fits.

It wont matter. The Lib Democrats will be over the person claiming that unless he has personally paid for other people's abortions he is a threat to the American Way of Life.
The Conservatives (esp those on this board) will be all over the person claiming that unless he has personally bought guns for other people he is a threat to the American Way of Life.

I dont see how a circus will be avoided. :fire:

[Marshall]

Keep in mind that the Pres is more than likely planning on having another seat on the Supreme Court to nominate for soon. It could have an effect in many directions on whom he nominates this time.

[WvaBill]

All that being said ... I'm still darn glad we are not discussing whether President Kerry was going to nominate Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein or Susan Estrich to the Supreme Court.

In the Gospel According to (Dick)Morris:rolleyes:, the next pick will be HRC. :eek:

[taliv]

my bet is that bush burns a far right conservative. he'll toss out somebody we like tonight... and extreme conservative... and let the left go ballistic. we'll get a lot of heated debate and threats over filibusters and nucular options, so both sides of the aisle can look good to their base.

then rove will leak something obviously objectionable from their past, and bush will withdraw and drop someone else in much closer to october. they'll be closer in ideology to a souter or oconner (possibly gonzales). the left will call it a victory because they avoided the relatively strong conservative, and bush will call it a victory because one of his buddies gets a lifetime appt.


where's my tinfoil?

[Kurush]

Coronach, right story, wrong link. :rolleyes: This (http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:AOe7lLCsMyYJ:www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions%255Cpub%255C04/04-40734-CV0.wpd.pdf+site:www.ca5.uscourts.gov+%22clement,+circuit+judge%22+slammed&hl=en) is the one I meant to link to.

Now TWP is saying (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/16/AR2005071601049_pf.html) he's going to nominate John G. Roberts. CNN is saying the same thing. :scrutiny:

[Sindawe]

I dont see how a circus will be avoided. Why would we want that? Hey, wait a minute, where is my bread!

[Kurush]

If he does nominate Roberts the Dems are going to go berserk. I can't wait to see Ted Kennedy's head swell up like a tomato :D :neener:

[beerslurpy]

So far the only thing I can find on Roberts is that he is very much anti-abortion and anti-affirmative action.

Has he deigned to say anything on the subject of arms and the keeping thereof?

[Coronach]

Coronach, right story, wrong link. This is the one I meant to link to.You know? I was reading that link going "Jeesh. Are we talking about the same case?" ;)

Moot now, anyway. Looks like Roberts, huh?

Mike

[peacefuljeffrey]

She has stated that the Supreme Court "has clearly held that the right to privacy guaranteed by the Constitution includes the right to have an abortion" and that "the law is settled in that regard."


Um, I don't see how the right to PRIVACY has a bearing on whether abortion itself should be legal.

If abortion is legal, then the privacy issue is one of, "Does someone have to tell any third party that she is getting an abortion?"

If abortion were to be legally defined as murder (as many believe it is), then whether it's PRIVATE or not would be moot.

It's well settled that even though I have a right to privacy, that doesn't mean that anything I do in privacy is my business alone, and no matter what it is I'm doing, I have a right to do it. If I were to privately do cocaine, the law says that private or not, I don't have a right to do it. I can't privately beat my wife. I can't privately maim domestic animals. Privacy doesn't enter into some issues. Like abortion. It's either murder, or it's not.

(BTW I myself was a long-time pro-choicer, and I am really teetering toward believing that it is flat-out wrong. More and more of me is believing in the quasi-mystical notion that something special happens when an egg is fertilized and starts to become a human being. My suspicion is that given time, I will end up being pro-life. But not rabidly so, as some people are. And NOT for RELIGIOUS reasons, but for HUMANIST ones, if ya can believe that!)


edit: Just how does the court find that "privacy rights" extend to abortion, anyway? Is it that clause about "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, papers and effects"? And then abortion is about being "secure in your person"?

-Jeffrey

[Marshall]

PJ, I'm stumped, we agree on something. :neener:

Do you have kids?

My turning point was listening to my children's heartbeats while in the womb at such an early stage, seeing ultrasounds and knowing that I was listening to, and, seeing a part of my wife and I that was already our child. Matter of fact it slapped me in the face very hard. That was 22 yrs and 3 children ago. :)