Update [2005-7-19 19:9:9 by susanhu]: MSNBC says it is not Clement.
Update [2005-7-19 15:22:45 by susanhu]: “The Supreme Court Nomination Blog just found out that Specter’s office just sent around a note referring people to Edith Brown Clement’s 2001 confirmation hearing questions.” (RedState.org)
Update [2005-7-19 13:2:16 by susanhu]: Bush will announce nominee in “prime time” at 9pmET/6pm PT.
CNN reports it’s Edith Brown Clement, says Atrios. Now Atrios says that CNN “…seem[s] to be backing off now. weird.” (Raw Story headline: Insiders say Clement pick at 4pm… Rumors or real?
Ex-lawyer to oil firms; ‘Leans defense’ civil cases… [That link goes to the WaPo story.])
A quick find on her, via The Republic of T blog:
Info on Edith Brown Clement is available via Slate’s list of potential picks. Slate suggests she’s a middle-of-the-road candidate with not much to excite conservatives or liberals for or against her nomination.
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.
Update [2005-7-19 12:19:27 by susanhu]: WaPo confirms there will be an announcement this afternoon at WH. Moved to 9pm ET.
DETAILS BELOW, including good background from Slate and from ABC’s The Note, as well as hard questions from Nathan Newman:
Update [2005-7-19 13:12:39 by susanhu]: BooMan sent me Nathan Newman’s post this morning, “Is it Clement? The perfect ‘stealth candidate’?” An excerpt: As Jeffrey Rosen in this article details: <DD. Update [2005-7-19 12:29:48 by susanhu]: From ABC’s The Note:
Everything about her record suggests she would enthusiastically support the federalism revolution. This year, for example, a group of Texas developers challenged the constitutionality of the Endangered Species Act after the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in an effort to protect a rare species of underground bugs, denied them a permit to develop a shopping mall. The Texas appellate court rejected the challenge, but Clement joined a blistering dissent by Judge Edith Jones (another possible Bush Supreme Court nominee) criticizing the panel for crafting "a constitutionally limitless theory of federal protection." Taken to its logical limits, the Constitution in Exile would call into question not only environmental protections but workplace regulations like the Occupational Safety and Health Act.
Similarly People for the American Way has this site up on Clement and details that she supported radically restricting Congress’s jurisdiction over criminal law involving theft and robbery:
In other words, Judge Clement voted to significantly limit the reach of the Hobbs Act and the authority of Congress under the Commerce Clause. In doing so, she would have overturned established Fifth Circuit precedent and ruled in a manner inconsistent with the law in several other circuits.
On the same page, PFAW documents her hostility to consumers and to juries having the right to assess damages against corporations who harm the public:
This case concerned a truck accident involving an eighteen-wheeler tractor trailer…the jury found the truck company and driver liable and awarded damages, which included $200,000 each to the estates of Becky and Kallie Vogler for their pain and mental anguish prior to death, as approved by the trial court…the majority reduced the award to Mrs. Vogler’s estate to $30,000.
So even where damages are hardly astronomical — a few hundred thousand to compensate for the death of two people — Clement’s instinct is to second-guess juries in favor of corporate profits.
Full list of potential nominees: Slate
You can read more at the site, ConfirmThem:
As Jeffrey Rosen in this article details:
Update [2005-7-19 12:29:48 by susanhu]: From ABC’s The Note: