If Bush nominates Clement, should the Dems fight it?

[Goldmund]

Here is some info about her from dkosopedia:

Judicial outlook and record
Clement doesn't provide much ammunition for opposition groups, but perhaps not much for conservatives to get excited about either. She hasn't written anything notable off the bench (or at least nothing that's come to light yet), and most of her judicial decisions have been in relatively routine and uncontroversial cases.

Civil Rights and Liberties
For a unanimous panel, allowed a plaintiff who sued the police for violating his right to due process to proceed with his claim that the officers who arrested him used excessive force when they allegedly injured him by slamming the door of their car against his head. Reversed the district court's finding that the plaintiff could also sue for unlawful arrest and excessive force involving the use of handcuffs. (Tarver v. City of Edna, 2005)

Environmental Protection and Property Rights
Voted for the 5th Circuit to rehear a decision blocking developers from building on a site where six endangered bug species lived in a cluster of limestone caves. Clement joined a dissent that argued that the decision's rationale for protecting the bugs—to preserve the interdependent web of species—bore no relationship to Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce. (GDF Realty Investments v. Norton, 2004)

Criminal Law
For a unanimous panel, rejected the claim of a man flying to Nigeria that his luggage was unlawfully searched at the border. Clement ruled broadly that customs inspectors need not have probable cause to search the bags of people who are leaving the country. (U.S. v. Odutayo, 2005)

Agreed with a unanimous panel that an asylum applicant who was 20 minutes late to a hearing because he'd taken the wrong highway exit should not have been ordered deported in absentia and was entitled to a new hearing. (Alarcon-Chavez v. Gonzales, 2005)

Habeas Corpus
Over a dissent, ruled that a death-row inmate who claimed to be mentally retarded was entitled to a lawyer to develop that claim in a habeas petition. Clement's ruling followed the Supreme Court's 2002 decision barring the execution of the mentally retarded. She followed up with a second opinion that limited the significance of her ruling by stating "this is a fact-bound case." (Hearn v. Dretke, 2004)

For a unanimous panel, reversed a decision of the district court finding that a police officer convicted of civil rights violation, for hitting a drunk suspect in the head with his baton, was entitled to a new trial because his lawyer was ineffective. The officer argued that his lawyer erred by failing to call character witnesses to rebut testimony that he'd complained about the need to control Mexicans in the United States. Clement said the rebuttal evidence would have been irrelevant because the officer was not charged with a hate crime. (U.S. v. Harris, 2005)

Damage Awards
Over a partial dissent, in reviewing a jury verdict in favor of a man whose wife and 3-year-old daughter were killed in a car crash, affirmed damage awards of $1.9 million for the man's loss of his wife and $1.5 million for the loss of his daughter. Reduced from $200,000 to $30,000 an award to the wife's estate for her pain and mental anguish before her death and eliminated a $200,000 award to the daughter's estate for her pain and mental anguish. (Vogler v. Blackmore, 2003)

Affiliations

* Republican Party
* Federalist Society

http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Edith_Brown_Clement

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Goldmund]

4. KKKarl? Wouldn't a bitter fight be in your interest?

;)

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bluestateguy]

2. Jones

I think she ruled in favor of the state of Texas in that case with the man on death row whose court-appointed lawyer fell asleep at the trial. She ruled against giving him a new trial.

I know what the outcome will likley be, but I'd like to see the Democrats actually go down fighting, standing for something, and taking their case to the voters in 2006.

[The Jacobin]

3. I sure would like to see

some of the language in her decisions before I vote. Reading the summaries on Kos, she doesn't seem like a knuckle-dragger, and this looks like a good opportunity to praise Bush for a rational pick.

But I really would like the language she used in her decisions. Attitude matters at a lower court b/c they have to follow the supremes.

[On the Road]

17. That's Right -- It's Not Just a Matter of Positions

or a righty-lefty thing -- it's her reasoning process. I would almost rather have a principled conservative than a more moderate stooge like Gonzalez supposedly is. If that's what she really is.

[w13rd0]

5. Bush should not be permitted...

...to make ANY lifetime appointments PERIOD

[leveymg]

6. I respectfully dissent. Would we allow Nixon to appoint a SC justice

after the Watergated investigation started? Why not fight them now?

[Goldmund]

10. Well, it seems to me that if it indeed is her,

that it's a reflection of Bush's weak political position. Unfortunate as it is, Bush WILL get to appoint a SC justice. It looks like somebody like Clement is the best we could hope for -- she's basically another O'Connor. Conservatives will get bitchy about it because they're expecting a "payback" for electing Bush and want some Christian Mullah on the court.

Also, if she's easily confirmed, the story goes away and we're back to Rove/Scooter/Plame.

[Ian David]

12. That's a good point that I hadn't thought of!

Can we ask Congress to suspend presidential appointments until after PlameGate and DSM are resolved?

On the other hand, if the Dems started giving a candidate their whole-hearted support, the Reich-wing might get too suspicious to carry through.

You know, the whole Briar Rabbit thing.

[leveymg]

16. Does no harm to ask.

This would be a good time to do it.

[bullimiami]

8. there must be a catch. some reason why bush would consider her.

something that us DUers would find disturbing.

I dont see it though.

[Goldmund]

11. It could be that he's weak and can't afford to nominate a non-moderate.

[LouKYDem]

9. Well...

she ALMOST looks like a decent choice based purely upon that, but then again, that is only in comparison to one of the other freaks that could be put up for nomination. By Bush standards, this lady almost sounds okay... but then again, if we go by Bush standards, we are setting our standards very low. The lack of a solid record is what disturbs me, there are so many unknowns with her.

[Goldmund]

13. True

But since Bush is the one who gets to nominate, the Bush standards are the only standards relevant. :)

[cascadiance]

14. Here's another link to look up info on her...

http://www.nathannewman.org/log/archives/003227.shtml

[dr.strangelove]

15. She is a hardcore conservative that should be opposed vigorously

She falls somewhere between Scalia and Thomas, which is a bit too far to the right for my tastes. I hope Chuck Schumer does his job and calls her out as the right wing originalist she is.

[Goldmund]

20. I see no evidence that she falls "somewhere between Scalia and Thomas"

I don't remember Scalia and Thomas saying that Roe is "clearly the law of the land", as she has said (paraphrasing).

[dr.strangelove]

21. I see it very differently

Paraphrasing her is part of the problem going on today. I believe what she said during her confirmation hearing was that "(SCOTUS) 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." The issue is not what she said, but what she did not say. Her answer was a perfectly rehearsed answer for a nominee to a subordinate court. I have been saying for some time that the standards, and the questions, used to evaluate a COA judge are very different from a SCOTUS justice. The issue here is not just Judge Clement’s comments during her COA confirmation hearing, but is her willingness to overturn precedent that she believes was wrongly decided. She was never asked that question because the position she was nominated for did not encompass such an option. The SCOTUS justice does indeed.

Additionally, I am not looking to convince anyone of my opinion in this forum. I was surprised so many DUers have jumped behind this woman. There are many liberal attorneys in the eastern district of LA who probably have been in her courtroom, as I have. I have no doubt of her conservative ideology and that her politics is evident from her decision making. A great many of my cases with her have been in the US Longshore and Jones Act worker's comp type cases, which do not raise what I would call "sexy issues" to talk about during a confirmation hearing. Nonetheless, I have no doubt that she is a hardcore conservative. I have heard her lecture attorneys on how insurance companies need not pay for mistakes that juries make. She has overturned jury verdicts to protect insurance companies. She is an originalist, a federalist and a strict constructionist of statutes, regulations and rules. If she is approved, I have no doubt she will hold a place in history much like Scalia. Check on his confirmation vote, recall the expectation he had going onto the court and what his place in history is. She is a "sleeper." She is being picked because she will get by easily. Once she gets there she will be on the extreme right of the court.

[ellenfl]

18. it's the federalist society that made me say 'no'. don't know

much about them but don't like what i know.

ellen fl

[stray cat]

19. Lets wait and see what comes out with the confirmation process.

Isn't that what its for.....

[ElsewheresDaughter]

22. Edith Clement is off the list...she will NOT be it