Clement getting nod for Supreme Court tonight?

[Hurin_Rules]

Looks like the frontrunner is Clement--perhaps fittingly, since her name means moderate.

Sorry Pindar, I couldn't find your thread where you handicapped the nominees. Do you know anything about her?

Seems she is pro-choice to some extent, since she said the constitution protects a woman's right and that the law on the matter is settled:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8625492/

Anyone else know much about her?

Ok, must get back to work... ~:)

[Don Corleone]

She agrees that the court ordering abortions into the 9th month is perfectly acceptable. She agrees with the court on enabling government to sieze private property and transfer it to another private party. She agrees with laws outlawing public expression of personal religions preferences, such as a student thanking God in their valedvictorian speech. How does any of that make her moderate? She's a Leftist suckup and she shows Bush has no balls. Congratulations, the Left really did win in Nov 2004.

:furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3:

[Big_John]

but don, how do you really feel? ~;)

here are pindar's picks, btw hurin.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=50150

he didn't have clement on there at all.

[Lemur]

As they say in Mortal Kombat, It has begun ... (http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2005-07-19T183515Z_01_SCH966812_RTRUKOC_0_BUSH-COURT.xml)

[Don Corleone]

Sorry, I just can't believe Bush is picking a Leftist judge. I've calmed down. It's pretty clear what happened. He told the Senate Democrats "I'll put up a Lefty, to replace O'Connor, and then you give no opposition to another conservative, to replace Rehnquist." End game: no net change.

Well, the joke's on Bush. There's no way Leahy will keep his half of the bargain, and when Rehnquist retires (somebody who doesn't believe in 9th month abortions) they'll insist on somebody who does to replace him too! Even when the Democrats lose elections, they still get to pick the judges.

[Ser Clegane]

Merged Lemurmania's thread with this one :bow:

[Proletariat]

Still wading through it myself, but here is a nice summary of Clement legal positions.

http://www.sctnomination.com/blog/archives/2005/07/rolling_list_of_1.html

[Proletariat]

I think she'll be okay.


Edith Clement, perhaps...

Jane Galt says she is pro-choice on abortion. Googling "Edith Clement Economics" reveals she attended this seminar on climate change. She also has attended other seminars on economics and the environment, plus she is a member of The Federalist Society. Might she be a libertarian at heart?

The Washington Post claims she has no real paper trail, The Village Voice wrote:

EDITH BROWN CLEMENT: A former federal judge in the eastern district of Louisiana, she's on the Fifth Circuit now. Clement is thought to be a trustworthy conservative, but she has participated in few controversial cases. In one case she limited the claim in an auto accident suit, giving conservatives reason to believe that at the very least she would support Bush in his attack on lawyers and demands for tort reform.

Dallas News called her a "libertarian conservative" and noted the following:

5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Edith Brown Clement: Dissented from a case that blocked development on a site with endangered bug species, saying it had nothing to do with congressional power to regulate interstate commerce.

From Volohk. (http://volokh.com/)

[Don Corleone]

Well, I can't be a one-issue guy. She does seem to have ruled in favor of curbing some of the more gross abuses of the Commerce Clause.

[Don Corleone]

What do you mean she won't be too good for States Rights. She voted against using the Commerce Clause to protect cave crickets (as there's no commercial activity involved).

Two issues I disagree with her on: late term abortions are a Constitutional right and not allowing public religious speech, even from a non-governmental figure. She seems pretty good on sovereign immunity (no, we as a nation don't have to obey the laws of Sierra Leone). She also seems to be pretty strict on Habeas Corpus (strict I mean she follows the letter of the law, which is good in my book).

I think I need to give up on my dream of ending elective 9th month partial-birth abortions and move someplace civilized if I really find it intolerable.

[Proletariat]

She's gonna be fine (if it's even gonna be her).

She'll be fantastic on State's Rights. What did you mean by that, Gel Cube?

I like just about all her views that I can see, and the Democrats might even be stupid enough to argue this one so much that we get a real Scalia-type next time round.

[Don Corleone]

So GC, you think that Christians should not be allowed to publicly mention God or Jesus, huh? I'm not talking about government officials, but a student making a valedvictorian speech should not be allowed to wear a cross or thank God?

[Pindar]

Sorry Pindar, I couldn't find your thread where you handicapped the nominees. Do you know anything about her?



She wasn't one I picked for the list of possibles. I don't know her except that she is on the Fifth Circuit.

[Al Khalifah]

She agrees that the court ordering abortions into the 9th month is perfectly acceptable.
In a word... WHAT? That is disgusting.

[Don Corleone]

No, I don't think that. I believe heavily in free speach. As long as your speach is not creating laws that respect an establishment of religion (as forbidden by the constitution) then I think you should be able to say whatever you want, religiously. I am more opposed to things like Creationism being taught in schools.

Here here!!! ~:cheers: However, you do realize in the past 10 years, a HOST of court decisions have come out banning: students praying at their desks; student speakers from mentioning/thanking God during a speech; religiously themed music, etc. I'm no Creationist, and I think it's child abuse to teach it exclusively, but I also think the other side on that particular argument is equally fanatical.

If it sounds like I'm making straw-men with you, I'm not. You're probably not just aware of the secular fundamentalists running amok out there. ~D

[Don Corleone]

In a word... WHAT? That is disgusting.

Well, she didn't come right out and say that. She said she thought abortion policy as it stands is perfect and no further legal rulings are required. According to current legal precedence, you cannot restrict the time at which a woman is free to have an elective abortion, including into the 9th month. I actually consider myself to be pro-choice, but I cannot and will not sign on for that. :no: According to the pro-choice side, that means I'm pro-life, which is funny, cause the pro-life side says I'm pro-choice. I'm a man w/out a country on this one!!!

[Al Khalifah]

Aborting a nine month old baby is not an abortion - it is murder. Babies much younger than that can survive outside of the womb without any serious complication, how can they justify the destruction of that life. I'm glad to see that even as pro-choice you agree with that Don.

I can accept that science allows oppurtunities and that they give us the chance to amend mistakes. I am not happy about it, but I respect other peoples right to their opinions. However, surely no one can take that long to decide that they have made a mistake. Its obscene.

[Don Corleone]

Actually, according to epsitemology, "what is knowledge", evolution is a theory and will always be one. But trust me, there's plenty of other theories, and they're no less certain than many provable axioms.

The reason evolution is a theory is because it meets the sufficient, but not necessary clause. In order to prove that life on Earth necessarily stems from evolution one must be able to model evolution and show not only that evolution CAN develop life as we know it, that it MUST develop life as we know it.. The time frame invovled in such an experiment is millions of years, so it's not practical to talk about a 'proof of evolution'.

However, some other 'theories' that nobody seems to have issues with: Gravity, Maxwells Electromagnetic Equations, nuclear fission, combustion, Newton's 'laws' of thermodynamics (that are not laws, they're theories).

You get my point....

WOW, did I get off topic. Sorry, I'll stop now. :embarassed:

[Al Khalifah]

I hate to say it, but I agree with you. See, the Moderate and Tolerant Christian standpoint is often the most agreeable.

[Don Corleone]

It creeps a LOT of people out. But somehow, you are a misogynistic fundamentalist Christian who's trying to enslave (if not outright murder) women by admitting that it does. :dizzy2:

[Al Khalifah]

That's the PC Police for you Don.

[PanzerJaeger]

I just watched Special Report with Brit Hume and they are reporting that in recent hours people have refuted that Clement is a "given". It seems its more of anybody's guess at this point.

[scooter_the_shooter]

~:cheers: Hopefully its a pro gun judge. The brady bunch is gaining momentum again :help:

[Proletariat]

The creationist issue is hot.

No, it's not.

The only people who care about it are atheistic zealots.

[Goofball]

Here here!!! ~:cheers: However, you do realize in the past 10 years, a HOST of court decisions have come out banning: students praying at their desks; student speakers from mentioning/thanking God during a speech; religiously themed music, etc. I'm no Creationist, and I think it's child abuse to teach it exclusively, but I also think the other side on that particular argument is equally fanatical.

If it sounds like I'm making straw-men with you, I'm not. You're probably not just aware of the secular fundamentalists running amok out there. ~D

Sorry Don, I've heard you making these statements before about what I agree would be very harsh, unnecessary, and heavy-handed anti-Christian actions. But so far, it's been all anecdotal. Can you provide any links to back this stuff up? I'm not doubting what you are saying, but I would imagine there is a little more to the stories than that. I for the life of me can't imagine why the SC would make a ruling that banned a student from silently praying at his desk, as long as it wasn't distracting to the rest of the class.

I'd be very interested to see the details of that decision.

[Xiahou]

I'm still hoping for Brown. ~D

*crosses fingers*

[Don Corleone]

Sorry Don, I've heard you making these statements before about what I agree would be very harsh, unnecessary, and heavy-handed anti-Christian actions. But so far, it's been all anecdotal. Can you provide any links to back this stuff up? I'm not doubting what you are saying, but I would imagine there is a little more to the stories than that. I for the life of me can't imagine why the SC would make a ruling that banned a student from silently praying at his desk, as long as it wasn't distracting to the rest of the class.

I'd be very interested to see the details of that decision.

I'm glad you asked my friend. Let's take a quick look at what we have from just a quick look in Google over a glass of wine. Total search time, 11 minutes, including time to write this post, and refill wine glass, once...

This one is from a Jewish Rabbi who feels that while Jews & Muslims in America may enjoy religious freedoms, there's a double standard towards Christians http://www.towardtradition.org/article_Religious_Freedom.htm

Here, SCOTUS rules that the 10 commandments are okay, so long as they are presented in a secular, historical view. If any hint to their religious mention is made, they are banned. http://www.christianexaminer.com/Articles/Articles%20Jul05/Art_Jul05_02.html (By the way, how do they take bibles into court to swear on these days?)

In fact, let's review SCOTUS' track record:
: Engle v. Vitale 1962. SCOTUS banns any school prayer in a public (receives tax dollar) school http://www.etsu.edu/cas/history/docs/englevitale.htm

Stone v. Graham (1980) 10 Commandments unfit for students' eyes
http://www.etsu.edu/cas/history/docs/englevitale.htm

And the grand-daddy of them all, the one you specifically asked for
Wallace v. Jaffree(1985) Voluntary prayer not allowed on school grounds
http://members.aol.com/TestOath/JaffreeR.htm

Continuing on it's "NO CHRISTIANITY" rampage, SCOTUS also has
Lee v. Wesiman (1992) No prayer, even ecumenical, to be offered at public school events. http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/90-1014.ZS.html

There you have it chief. You cannot pray, allow time for prayer, or allow religious groups to operate independently on school grounds.

This is just the tip of the iceberg, as SCOTUS only picks cases it wants to hammer home. Many times, a Federal appellate court will rule (such as the Boy Scouts not allowed to use Federal property for campouts because of mention of God) and they just let the decision stand and refuse to hear appeals.

[Don Corleone]

Can somebody find & bump Pindar's post on possibles? I want to see what he had to say about Roberts.

[Proletariat]

I think it's the Christian Zealots forcing this crap down everyone's throat.

No one has ever forced this down anyone I know of's throat. You are using a non-issue or an issue only important to a microscopic fringe for your sanctimonious spring board.

This issue is only important to the one percent on either side of the political spectrum that feel a need to rebel against what they percieve is a majority.

Addled Christian: "These evolutionist heathens are trying to teach my Son that God is a myth!"

Over-zealous Atheist: "These Bible-thumping clods from the 7th Century actually believe God created the Earth in 168 hours and that Science is evil!"

When they are both clearly wrong. No one is trying to do either.



Creationism in schools is unconstitutional, in my opinion. But that's only my opinion, and is something I think should be left to the states.

So if everyone in Virginia believes in the Tooth Fairy, should they teach about her in school, or science class? This isn't a SR issue.