Supreme Court Nominee To Be Announced 9PM EST

[Nickdfresh]

Supreme Court Announcement Tonight, White House Says

By Peter Baker, Fred Barbash and William Branigin
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, July 19, 2005; 1:18 PM

The president is set to announce his Supreme Court nominee tonight at 9 p.m. ET, according to spokesman Scott McClellan.

The name of the nominee remained unknown. While many Republican strategists are anticipating that his choice will be Judge Edith Clement of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, other observers were cautious about speculating.

The leading female contenders, according to GOP strategists, are Clement, Judges Edith Hollan Jones, and Priscilla R. Owen, all of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit; Janice Rogers Brown of the D.C. Circuit; and Karen Williams of the 4th Circuit.

Jones, admired by many conservatives as a "strict constructionist" in interpreting the Constitution, was the runner-up to David H. Souter when President George H.W. Bush made his first court appointment in 1990. She has expressed strong opposition to Roe v. Wade , the decision establishing a constitutional right to abortion.

Owen and Brown were just confirmed to the appellate bench, after long Democratic delays, as part of a May deal to end a partisan showdown over judicial filibusters. If Bush picks either of them, strategists said, the White House will argue that the Senate could hardly reject the nomination months after approving the same person for a lower-court post. But such a move would be seen as provocative by Democrats who reluctantly dropped their filibuster against those two.

"I'm comfortable where we are in the process," the president said shortly after noon, during an appearance with Australian Prime Minister John Howard. "The best way to put it is I'll let you know when I'm ready to tell you who it is."

"I've heard nothing official, but it certainly does look like it," said a Republican strategist with close ties to the White House. "The word has gone out that we should be ready today. And the signs are all pointing to Clement."

The subject of most speculation today was Clement, 57, who served for 10 years on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana before being elevaned.

She was nominated to that court by President George H.W. Bush in October 1991 and also promptly confirmed by the Senate. In 2001 she served as chief judge of the District Court.

Clement was born in Birmingham, Ala., and earned a bachelor's degree from the University of Alabama in 1969 and a law degree from the Tulane University School of Law in 1972.

She was a law clerk for U.S. District Court Judge Herbert W. Christenberry in the Eastern District of Louisiana.

From 1975 until she became a judge in 1991, Clement worked in private practice in New Orleans, specializing in maritime law. She represented oil companies, insurance companies and the marine services industry in cases before federal courts.

She is a member of the Federalist Society, a conservative legal organization.

Clement has a reputation among lawyers as a no-nonsense judge who insists on professionalism in her courtroom and is strict about deadlines. While she is known as a judicial conservative, she also has been known to lean toward the defense in civil cases.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/19/AR2005071900725.html

[Nickdfresh]

Hmmm...Give that man a cigar!

http://www.rotharmy.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=605917#post605917

[Warham]

I want a diehard conservative to be nominated. Is that asking too much? ;)

[Warham]

Besides, this announcement isn't going to keep the rabid press off of Karl Rove's leg. Bush is probably using Rove as a distraction so that his conservative nomination will go through without too much fanfare.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
I want a diehard conservative to be nominated. Is that asking too much? ;)

You mean what used to be thought of as a radical.;)

And I agree, the ROVE stench isn't going anywhere.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Warham
I want a diehard conservative to be nominated. Is that asking too much? ;)

To replace Rehnquist, no. To replace O'Connor, yes. To replace Stevens.... I'll overthrow the fucking government before that happens.

In other words, leave the makeup of the court as it is now. In terms of appointments, it's overwhelmingly Republican as is. A court entirely composed of the radical right does not serve the American people.

[Warham]

So Bush will win on both counts. His nomination will go through, and Karl Rove will come out of this unscathed.

Pure genius, I say. I wonder if Rove comes up with this stuff in his sleep.

[Warham]

Originally posted by FORD
To replace Rehnquist, no. To replace O'Connor, yes. To replace Stevens.... I'll overthrow the fucking government before that happens.

I won't rest until we get nine originalists on the Court, all of a mind similar to the brilliant Scalia and Thomas.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
I won't rest until we get nine originalists on the Court, all of a mind similar to the brilliant Scalia and Thomas.

Eeeggads! Judge JOHN G. ROBERTS, an appellate court judge, born in BUFFALO, is supposedly the pick CNN reports.

He's described as "a little to the right" of O'CONNOR.

[BigBadBrian]

He clerked for Rehnquist.

One of the "good 'ole boys." :D

[FORD]

Here's some "highlights" of Roberts' record....

Civil Rights and Liberties

For a unanimous panel, denied the weak civil rights claims of a 12-year-old girl who was arrested and handcuffed in a Washington, D.C., Metro station for eating a French fry. Roberts noted that "no one is very happy about the events that led to this litigation" and that the Metro authority had changed the policy that led to her arrest. (Hedgepeth v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 2004).
In private practice, wrote a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that Congress had failed to justify a Department of Transportation affirmative action program. (Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Mineta, 2001).

For Reagan, opposed a congressional effort—in the wake of the 1980 Supreme Court decision Mobile v. Bolden—to make it easier for minorities to successfully argue that their votes had been diluted under the Voting Rights Act.


Separation of Church and State
For Bush I, co-authored a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that public high-school graduation programs could include religious ceremonies. The Supreme Court disagreed by a vote of 5-4. (Lee v. Weisman, 1992)

Environmental Protection and Property Rights
Voted for rehearing in a case about whether a developer had to take down a fence so that the arroyo toad could move freely through its habitat. Roberts argued that the panel was wrong to rule against the developer because the regulations on behalf of the toad, promulgated under the Endangered Species Act, overstepped the federal government's power to regulate interstate commerce. At the end of his opinion, Roberts suggested that rehearing would allow the court to "consider alternative grounds" for protecting the toad that are "more consistent with Supreme Court precedent." (Rancho Viejo v. Nortion, 2003)
For Bush I, argued that environmental groups concerned about mining on public lands had not proved enough about the impact of the government's actions to give them standing to sue. The Supreme Court adopted this argument. (Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, 1990)


Criminal Law
Joined a unanimous opinion ruling that a police officer who searched the trunk of a car without saying that he was looking for evidence of a crime (the standard for constitutionality) still conducted the search legally, because there was a reasonable basis to think contraband was in the trunk, regardless of whether the officer was thinking in those terms. (U.S. v. Brown, 2004)

Habeas Corpus
Joined a unanimous opinion denying the claim of a prisoner who argued that by tightening parole rules in the middle of his sentence, the government subjected him to an unconstitutional after-the-fact punishment. The panel reversed its decision after a Supreme Court ruling directly contradicted it. (Fletcher v. District of Columbia, 2004)

Abortion
For Bush I, successfully helped argue that doctors and clinics receiving federal funds may not talk to patients about abortion. (Rust v. Sullivan, 1991)

Judicial Philosophy
Concurring in a decision allowing President Bush to halt suits by Americans against Iraq as the country rebuilds, Roberts called for deference to the executive and for a literal reading of the relevant statute. (Acree v. Republic of Iraq, 2004)
In an article written as a law student, argued that the phrase "just compensation" in the Fifth Amendment, which limits the government in the taking of private property, should be "informed by changing norms of justice." This sounds like a nod to liberal constitutional theory, but Rogers' alternative interpretation was more protective of property interests than Supreme Court law at the time.

http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/John_G._Roberts_Jr.

yep, sounds just like the type of repressive 12 century asshole one would expect from this Fraudministration.

[academic punk]

Originally posted by Warham
I won't rest until we get nine originalists on the Court, all of a mind similar to the brilliant Scalia and Thomas.

Better start brewing that coffee now.

[DrMaddVibe]

It's Roberts!

No bitch!

[FORD]

Roberts contributed $1000 to the Florida Felony in 2000????

Payoff for his part in the Coup which betrayed our Democracy....

Oh yeah, this is nice......

And believe me, if that dirt was easy enough to find, every conflict of interest involving this motherfucking piece of shit will surface by tomorrow morning........

[DrMaddVibe]

LOL!

[Nickdfresh]

Watch all the Christian rightists bitch when their wet dream of outlawing abortion is never realized. I bet ROE V. WADE never gets overturned.

But civil rights will sure be eroded.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by FORD
Roberts contributed $1000 to the Florida Felony in 2000????

Payoff for his part in the Coup which betrayed our Democracy....

Oh yeah, this is nice......

And believe me, if that dirt was easy enough to find, every conflict of interest involving this motherfucking piece of shit will surface by tomorrow morning........

I'd like to hear more of your opinion on this matter.

[FORD]

"As a lawyer in private practice, Mr. Roberts has also represented large corporate interests opposing environmental controls. He submitted an amicus brief on behalf of the National Mining Association in the recent case Bragg v. West Virginia Coal Association. In this case, a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit reversed a district court ruling that had stopped the practice of "mountaintop removal" in the state of West Virginia."

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v518/Libertyforall/robertsupportedwhat.jpg

what a great guy......

[Warham]

A fantastic pick, lauded by both Republicans and Democrats over the years.

Bush was very slick with this nomination. Will almost certainly pass through the Judicial Committee, then get voted on by the Senate without too much fanfare.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
A fantastic pick, lauded by both Republicans and Democrats over the years.

Bush was very slick with this nomination. Will almost certainly pass through the Judicial Committee, then get voted on by the Senate without too much fanfare.

Jesus WARHAM, I don't hink you need to do WHITE HOUSE press releases. They have people for that.

[Warham]

I think it was a fantastic pick. Am I not allowed to an opinion? We can't all be pessimistic fucks on here, right? Besides Chuck Schumer and Kennedy (surprise, surprise!), I didn't hear too many Democrats bitching last night.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
I think it was a fantastic pick. Am I not allowed to an opinion? We can't all be pessimistic fucks on here, right? Besides Chuck Schumer and Kennedy (surprise, surprise!), I didn't hear too many Democrats bitching last night.

Ywah well, I don't know enough about the guy to make a decision. But you know you can actually deviate for the BUSH platform once in a while. Being a Republican doesn't mean being a spokeswhore for fearless leader.

[Warham]

Why should I go out on a limb and disagree on the Bush platform when you lefties here won't AGREE on anything he's done?

Doesn't sound like much of a give and take.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Why should I go out on a limb and disagree on the Bush platform when you lefties here won't AGREE on anything he's done?

Cause he's an idiot.;)


Doesn't sound like much of a give and take.

He hasn't done much right lately, even many real conservatives acknowledge that.

[Nickdfresh]

I just heard SCHUMER's "lefty" criticism on this guy, and it was far from unreasonable.

This guy hasn't been around for long, SCHUMER said ROBERTS has "outstanding legal credentionals." He just wanted a few more opinions from the guy to establish his beliefs on major subjects. ROBERTS is up for the big leagues now.

[Warham]

Yep, and when he went through the Judicial Committee two years ago, he passed by a 16-3 vote, Schumer being one of the 3.

[Warham]

I see all the rabid feminist pro-choice groups have surrounded the White House this morning in protest of Robert's nomination.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Yep, and when he went through the Judicial Committee two years ago, he passed by a 16-3 vote, Schumer being one of the 3.

Yes well, different level entirely. Like the difference between AA level baseball and MLB.

I have to say I'm somewhat pleasantly surprised that this guy seems on the level. But he's still a comparitive novice.


Originally posted by Warham
I see all the rabid feminist pro-choice groups have surrounded the White House this morning in protest of Robert's nomination.

Where did you get that newsflash from: www.rightwingnutjobsafraidofwomen.org?

There's always protestors in front of the White House.

[Warham]

Yeah, but they have come out of the woodwork today.

If it's not a liberal judge being nominated, there'll be major protests from these groups. Clinton got to pick two lefty judges. Bush gets to pick two conservative judges.

What's the problem?

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Yes well, different level entirely. Like the difference between AA level baseball and MLB.

I have to say I'm somewhat pleasantly surprised that this guy seems on the level. But he's still a comparitive novice.



Did you think Bush would pick somebody less than stellar?

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham
A fantastic pick, lauded by both Republicans and Democrats over the years.

Bush was very slick with this nomination. Will almost certainly pass through the Judicial Committee, then get voted on by the Senate without too much fanfare.

Great.

I hope he sails right through.

Why have an ugly, protracted confirmation if we're going to end up confirming him anyway. He's no Bork.

Let him sail, I say

Don't let it distract from the focus of Liars, Cheats, and Criminals in this White House which need to be dealt with

:cool:

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Jesus WARHAM, I don't hink you need to do WHITE HOUSE press releases. They have people for that.

Cut him some slack. He managed an entire post without resorting to "but Clinton"

Baby steps;)

Besides, If Warpig EVER strays from the Hannity / Rush bullet points even the slightest, it'll be a sign that the end is near

:cool:

[Warham]

Hey, it can't be a talking point when Democrats have nice things to say about the guy.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham
Hey, it can't be a talking point when Democrats have nice things to say about the guy.

Ever notice you say "Democrats" when it's in your interest, otherwise it's "Libs":rolleyes:

[Warham]

Yep, some Democrats are of sound mind.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Cut him some slack. He managed an entire post without resorting to "but Clinton"

Baby steps;)

Besides, If Warpig EVER strays from the Hannity / Rush bullet points even the slightest, it'll be a sign that the end is near

:cool:

So that's the sign of The Rapture?:D

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
So that's the sign of The Rapture?:D

Only if you believe Tim LaHaye!

[Warham]

Bush timed this nomination perfectly to make sure the mainstream press forgot about Karl Rove for a few days. It had nothing to do with the retirement of O'Connor or having a new judge on the bench when the next session begins in October.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Bush timed this nomination perfectly to make sure the mainstream press forgot about Karl Rove for a few days. It had nothing to do with the retirement of O'Connor or having a new judge on the bench when the next session begins in October.

As FORD said he would, but Lil' Turd Blossom will keep festering. I believe NIXON appointed a Supreme Court justice around the Watergate scandal actually. I'm not sure about that though, he did that or something similar.

[Warham]

O'Connor probably retired early on a handshake because she knew Rove was going to get in trouble. That gave Bush a chance to create a diversion. Rehnquist is waiting for the next Bush staffer to get in hot water, then he'll retire.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Warham
O'Connor probably retired early on a handshake because she knew Rove was going to get in trouble. That gave Bush a chance to create a diversion. Rehnquist is waiting for the next Bush staffer to get in hot water, then he'll retire.

And so the fact that the Bush Fraudministration is full of criminals doesn't bother you, as long as it creates diversions to get fascist judges on the bench.

How "Christian" of you.

[Warham]

You fill me in on how Roberts is a fascist instead of just a conservative judge, then I'll let you know how Christian I am.

[FORD]

He's a BCE stooge who worked for Ken $tarr under Poppy's administration. He contributed $1000 to the Felonious Florida Fraud of 2000. As a matter of fact, a lot of Chimpy's appointments to the bench have been "campaign donors".

Should anyone be able to BUY a seat on the Supreme Court??

He's anti-environment, he's pro corporatist, he stirs up just enough religious hype to get the trailer parks agitated, but has also claimed that Roe v Wade is "settled law", so don't count on him for that.

And this fucker has only been a judge for TWO YEARS. How the HELL is he qualified for the highest court in the country??

They might as well nominate me for the job. I'd do better than this fascist clown.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham
Yep, some Democrats are of sound mind.

You mean a "Democrat" is a Lib that agrees with you, right?

:cool:

[Warham]

Originally posted by FORD
He's a BCE stooge who worked for Ken $tarr under Poppy's administration. He contributed $1000 to the Felonious Florida Fraud of 2000. As a matter of fact, a lot of Chimpy's appointments to the bench have been "campaign donors".

Should anyone be able to BUY a seat on the Supreme Court??

He's anti-environment, he's pro corporatist, he stirs up just enough religious hype to get the trailer parks agitated, but has also claimed that Roe v Wade is "settled law", so don't count on him for that.

And this fucker has only been a judge for TWO YEARS. How the HELL is he qualified for the highest court in the country??

They might as well nominate me for the job. I'd do better than this fascist clown.

So what if he donated money to the RNC? Big deal! Not all judges should just donate to the DNC. And do you think that Roberts is the only judge that has donated to any political party? I think not.

Pro-corporatist you say? What about those five libs on the Supreme Court that just voted in Wal-mart's and big business' favor a few weeks ago by allowing them to steamroll my house in order to build another store? It's the libs on the Supreme Court that scare me, not conservatives!

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham
Bush timed this nomination perfectly to make sure the mainstream press forgot about Karl Rove for a few days. It had nothing to do with the retirement of O'Connor or having a new judge on the bench when the next session begins in October.

Making our points for us now?:D

[Warham]

In a sarcastic manner, Lounge. :D

[DrMaddVibe]

Originally posted by FORD
I'd do better than this fascist clown.

That's debatable!:D

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by FORD
He's a BCE stooge who worked for Ken $tarr under Poppy's administration. He contributed $1000 to the Felonious Florida Fraud of 2000. As a matter of fact, a lot of Chimpy's appointments to the bench have been "campaign donors".

Are you missing some zeroes? Because $1000 is pretty immaterial to gw's campaign chest.

This guy doesn't seem THAT bad FORD. His record on the environment is bad though.

The problem is the NEXT one :(

[FORD]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
Are you missing some zeroes? Because $1000 is pretty immaterial to gw's campaign chest.

This guy doesn't seem THAT bad FORD. His record on the environment is bad though.

The problem is the NEXT one :(

No, that $1000 wasn't to the proper election year campaign. It was for the after 11/07/00 election THEFT in Florida. Problem is though, that a LOT of the judges since nominated by the Chimp are guilty of this. As I said before, Roberts only has three years experience as a judge, and that's because Chimpy already appointed him once.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by FORD
No, that $1000 wasn't to the proper election year campaign. It was for the after 11/07/00 election THEFT in Florida. Problem is though, that a LOT of the judges since nominated by the Chimp are guilty of this. As I said before, Roberts only has three years experience as a judge, and that's because Chimpy already appointed him once.

Oh, ok, well that makes it more shady. Where'd you read that?

He certainly is in the good ol' boys though. Well, it could be worse.


I think all this talk today of gw's "decision" is funny. gw interviewing people and then thinking about it and choosing the right guy for the job. It's just funny to me.

[diamondD]

So now $1000 gets you a seat on the Supreme Court? Not too bad.

What did you think FORD, that Bush was going to pick someone he had never heard of or dealt with?

[DrMaddVibe]

!

[Warham]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
Oh, ok, well that makes it more shady. Where'd you read that?

He certainly is in the good ol' boys though. Well, it could be worse.


I think all this talk today of gw's "decision" is funny. gw interviewing people and then thinking about it and choosing the right guy for the job. It's just funny to me.

Underestimating Bush is a problem that the libs and the press have had since 2000.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Warham
Underestimating Bush is a problem that the libs and the press have had since 2000.

shut up :rolleyes:

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
shut up :rolleyes:

Now thats a well thought-out reply. :D

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Now thats a well thought-out reply. :D

pre-coffee :o

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
pre-coffee :o

Yeah, I know the feeling. That's about as many words as I can manage before my first cup. :D

[FORD]

Originally posted by Warham
Underestimating Bush is a problem that the libs and the press have had since 2000.

The press can't underestimate the chimp. They're too busy sucking him off :blow:

And the "libs" know the difference between half-assed monkey boy, and those like Rove and the PNAC'ers who are actually in charge.

[academic punk]

Originally posted by Warham
Bush timed this nomination perfectly to make sure the mainstream press forgot about Karl Rove for a few days. It had nothing to do with the retirement of O'Connor or having a new judge on the bench when the next session begins in October.

Think so?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2005/07/21/BL2005072101004_pf.html

War - you know how cops will stop at nothing to get a guy who attacked or killed one of their own? That's what's going to happen with this media circus. It's a media event taking about the media. these sort of stories never ever go away quietly.

[Warham]

No, I don't think so. I said it in sarcastic jest, immitating the libs on the forum that think Bush is some kind of svengali, manipulating everything to get Rove out of trouble.