Tuesday, July 19, 2005
RedState: Are we on a SCOTUS goose chase?
RedState first came out with this summary on Clement, followed by this more substantial post. It seems that the gang at RedState was starting to face the inevitability of a Clement nomination by dressing it up in conservative colors.
But things seem to have changed. RedState is now posting that we - bloggers and MSM alike - have been the victims of a bail-and-switch, that Clement was the name leaked but that it is her 5th Circuit associate, Judge Edith H. Jones, who is the nominee. This makes sense as a tactic, because I was not happy with Clement but am much more supportive of Jones, who was nearly nominated to the Court by the elder President Bush. If you need any convincing that Jones is the better pick, read this article regarding Jones' speech to the Federalist Society at Harvard Law in 2003.
Now this is a nomination that I can get behind...
UPDATE: Contradicting the above, Senator Specter's office has just circulated a memo on Clement, according to the Supreme Court Nomination Blog.
UPDATE on the UPDATE: This indirectly from Senator Specter's office:
"We're helpfully advised that a committee staff member sent the email around because of the large number of requests received for information on Clement, no more."
So maybe we shouldn't read too much into the Clement memo. Also, Hugh Hewitt has been told by someone "in the know" that he is collecting the wrong judge's opinions.
MORE: ProLifeBlogs (Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin) has some interesting background, including the following quote from Judge Edith Clement regarding abortion:
"(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.’"
Message to those who are trying to quash my fears about Judge Edith Clement by saying that she is "99% pro-life" - you are wrong, convicted by the judge's own words. And if you are wrong about that, what makes me think that you know any more about her being a "conservative" than you do about her pro-abortion record?
Meanwhile, Hadley Arkes has a fantastic column up on this subject at National Review Online (although he mistakenly links being anti-partial birth abortion with being pro-life), and Power Line sounds as worried about the Clement possibility than I am.
But things seem to have changed. RedState is now posting that we - bloggers and MSM alike - have been the victims of a bail-and-switch, that Clement was the name leaked but that it is her 5th Circuit associate, Judge Edith H. Jones, who is the nominee. This makes sense as a tactic, because I was not happy with Clement but am much more supportive of Jones, who was nearly nominated to the Court by the elder President Bush. If you need any convincing that Jones is the better pick, read this article regarding Jones' speech to the Federalist Society at Harvard Law in 2003.
Now this is a nomination that I can get behind...
UPDATE: Contradicting the above, Senator Specter's office has just circulated a memo on Clement, according to the Supreme Court Nomination Blog.
UPDATE on the UPDATE: This indirectly from Senator Specter's office:
"We're helpfully advised that a committee staff member sent the email around because of the large number of requests received for information on Clement, no more."
So maybe we shouldn't read too much into the Clement memo. Also, Hugh Hewitt has been told by someone "in the know" that he is collecting the wrong judge's opinions.
MORE: ProLifeBlogs (Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin) has some interesting background, including the following quote from Judge Edith Clement regarding abortion:
"(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.’"
Message to those who are trying to quash my fears about Judge Edith Clement by saying that she is "99% pro-life" - you are wrong, convicted by the judge's own words. And if you are wrong about that, what makes me think that you know any more about her being a "conservative" than you do about her pro-abortion record?
Meanwhile, Hadley Arkes has a fantastic column up on this subject at National Review Online (although he mistakenly links being anti-partial birth abortion with being pro-life), and Power Line sounds as worried about the Clement possibility than I am.
Permalink posted by Rob Huddleston @ 2:40 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
Are there any Federal judges out there who would vote to reverse a major Supreme Court precedent? Or are we all just dreaming if we think such a thing could happen even with the most conservative nominee? To reverse Roe v.Wade would not only hand abortion legislation back to the states, but would have implications on the right to privacy itself (not that I find that principle particularly legitimate in constitutional terms.
Post a Comment
<< Home
