Posted on 07/24/2005 2:16:40 AM PDT by beyond the sea
WASHINGTON -- Mentioning the little-known Judge Edith Brown Clement as front-runner for the Supreme Court vacancy was not a ploy to obscure the eventual selection of Judge John Roberts. She was the real runner-up, after evoking mixed reviews from conservatives.
President Bush was very much impressed with Clement during his interview with her, and sources say he gave her a White House tour. However, anti-abortion activists were not happy, contending that she has no record on their issue. Clement's supporters say she is very well thought of by conservative Justice Antonin Scalia and that she would follow his lead on the court. Princeton Professor Robert P. George, a social conservative and prominent Catholic layman, is a strong Clement backer who vouched for her.
Given Bush's early inclination to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor with another woman, the reason why he passed over Clement is not clear. Sources close to the selection process speculate that the president may have suspected that Clement's supporters were too vocal in publicly promoting her.
NON-FEDERALIST ROBERTS
The confusion over whether Supreme Court nominee John Roberts is a member of the conservative Federalist Society extended to the White House. While one presidential aide privately was assuring conservatives Wednesday that Roberts belonged, another Bush assistant was telling a conference call of Roberts surrogates that he did not.
Roberts over the years often has been identified as a Federalist member, but he is reported now as telling Bush aides that he never joined the society. Federalist Society President Eugene Meyer told this column his organization does not reveal its members and disclosure is up to individuals.
A link to the Federalist Society, which has been highly critical of the Supreme Court's liberal decisions, could be used to attack Roberts's judicial objectivity.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
In his confirmation testimony two years ago, Roberts said that judges should be "ever mindful that they are insulated from democratic pressures precisely because the Framers expected them to be discerning law, not shaping policy," and added: "That means that judges should not look to their own personal views or preferences in deciding the cases before them. Their commission is no license to impose their preferences from the bench."
So what's the truth??
Just not good enough.
Equivalent to "Roberts' supporters say ..."
***
I'm getting a kick out of the libs and dems getting all bent out of shape about the rumors of Edith Clement:
Liberals, upset with Roberts nomination demand to know source of Clement rumors
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1446901/posts
I don't know. I assume he agrees with their position.
*LOL* Are they now? That is funny. :-)
The Dems. and Walter Cronkite are still pissed that Karl Rove got Osama to make that convenient tape right before the election.
;-)
Some Senator will ask him and he'll have to answer.
I hope so. :-)
The diametric opposite of whatever the Democrats are saying.
Then that might mean he's not a member of "the conservative Federalist Society".
Is that a good thing?
I think this man is simply brilliant and decided early in his career not to get pegged with an ideological tag. It wouldn't stop him from being a conservative.
Yet the proof is in the pudding. We just won't know until his first ruling.
Thanks for the info. No doubt you're right about the pudding. :-)
I see. Even tho we keep winning elections, we should cower.
LOL.
"I see." Questionable vision perhaps.
Remaining quiet is not "cowering" as you nimbly suggest, instead it's keeping them guessing........... and don't you just love uncertain liberals wondering what's up?
Does this mean that we can expect the inferior and underqualified Clement to be nominated to replace Rehnquist? If so than it would be a great disappointment. Another 6 months will be enough time for Janice Rogers-Brown to have served on the Circuit Court. I mean c'mon, she served for years of the Supreme Court of our largest state. That ought to be enough. Edith Clement would be a capitulation to Liberals.
I don't think so. Just because she was said to be the runner-up a little while ago, doesn't mean that that will be true when Rehnquist retires.
I like Edith Jones if F. Lee Levin is not the nominee.
"Yet the proof is in the pudding. We just won't know until his first ruling."
The proof is in the performance. And the libs didn't have to wait with Bader-Ginsberg, the ACLU candidate, nor with Breyer, and neither should we.
I'm getting increasingly bad vibs here, but I guess we'll have to wait for the hearings, but I doubt this candidate will reveal much.
I am personally very concerned here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.