Subtlety is for wimps
If she is indeed Bush's choice, Edith Brown Clement appears to be pretty un-Bork-like, and more Souter- or Kennedy-like - on other words, someone Democrats would find it hard to oppose. But she could also turn out to be a right-wing Souter. In any case nominating her would be uncharacteristically non-confrontational for the Bush White House. I thought they wanted a huge partisan nuclear conflagration. Though wearying, that usually seems to work for them, and they really need something right now to distract the masses from Rove, Iraq et al. So not clear what's going on here. Is Bush actually going to do something subtle?
Advertisement
They may have decided, in their insidious way, that they simply need some good press.
July 19, 2005 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Slightly O/T: How unusual is it for a President to announce a SCOTUS nominee with a televised prime time address?
July 19, 2005 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
From the articles I read this is the first time. This Administration has always been big in theatre. I have two questions:
1) Has anyone seen any reaction from the Dobson, Reed, etc crew?
2) Will Bush take questions tonight or will it just be a statement?
July 19, 2005 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just looked at some of her opinions. I'm not a lawyer, so some of them left me dazed and confused. But while there was some to like, most was bad. Particularly concerning, in my view, was her dissent from an opinion upholding the ability of the government to protect a rare type of bug under the Endangered Species Act. She claimed that the bug had no connection to inner-state commerce.
July 19, 2005 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Particularly concerning, in my view, was her dissent from an opinion upholding the ability of the government to protect a rare type of bug under the Endangered Species Act. She claimed that the bug had no connection to inner-state commerce.
I think you mean "inter-state" commerce.
This is a common feature of Thomas's jurisprudence in particular, that the courts should take a narrower view of the Commerce Clause to determine whether Congress has jurisdiction in regulating things. To dismantle the broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause and take a literal reading of it would render invalid a huge amount of what Congress has done in recent years. It is a conservative weapon to try to neuter the government.
This is the sort of thing that people are talking about when they refer to "strict constructionist" interpretations of the Constitution.
July 19, 2005 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
<i>Particularly concerning, in my view, was her dissent from an opinion upholding the ability of the government to protect a rare type of bug under the Endangered Species Act. She claimed that the bug had no connection to inner-state commerce.</i>
Oh man...I really hope that was a facetious statement...
July 19, 2005 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
My initial gut reaction to reading her stuff was...he replaced an O'Connor with an O'Connor.
I mean, here's the thing: true, she hasn't written much; but if you have the approach to jurisprudence that someone like Thomas/Owen/Rogers Brown/Posner does it becomes apparent sooooo quickly. I mean, you don't hide in the shadows and pick opinions to write lightly if you honestly believe the entire post-New Deal government is unconstitutional. It becomes apparent almost from day one.
Although O'Connor finished 3rd in her class at Stanford, she was never thought of as a heavyweight legal theorist. Instead, she was an even-handed pragmatist. Clement seems to exude the same sorta qualities.
Now, why would Bushie nominate someone like this...
1) As we have discussed, he's actually not an anti-choice, let's-go-back to the 1920s conservative. He'd like to increase states' rights, but sees no need to take drastic measures to do so. (Also, it's worth noting, that O'Connor was at her most conservative with regards to states' rights; it appears Clement is of the same ilk).
2) He knows that if this isn't an easy confirmation battle, he's impotent from here on out. If he spends his "political capital" on a Thomas, Jr., he'll be broke. Think about the wake that he's left for the past six months: botched privatization, plummeting approval ratings, the schiavo fiasco, the dud of an Iraq speech that nobody even watched, and finally the Rove scandal. He's limping into this confirmation. He doesn't want to emerge without legs.
July 19, 2005 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's remember, it's Bush's prerogative to nominate anyone he wants because he won the election. Democrats shouldn't be in a knee-jerk opposition mode only because the judge opposes something that the Democrats hold dear.
There's such a thing as a good judge and a bad judge. Overly ideological judges, both on the left and right, tend to be bad judges. At first blush, a judge without any ideological tint would appear to be a blessing.
It's more important that a detailed analysis of the judge's opinions, articles, and speeches are examined to make sure there's nothing out there indicating she's loony, rather than something which we merely oppose on ideological grounds.
July 19, 2005 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
"In any case nominating her would be uncharacteristically non-confrontational for the Bush White House."
Assuming it turns out to be Clement, you have indeed hit upon the remarkable part of this.
I'd say it means that Plame/Rove/Libby/Niger/Iraq-gate has the WH pretty damn spooked.
If it walks all gimpy and it quacks, that means it's a...
July 19, 2005 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Souter WAS "a
July 19, 2005 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
ABC News is now reporting it's not Clement.
July 19, 2005 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll withhold judgment until I see how the wingnut evangelists react. Whichever way they go, I'll go the opposite.
July 19, 2005 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink