|
Post by HoyaDestroya on Jul 19, 2005 12:13:17 GMT -5
Edith Clement?
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Jul 19, 2005 12:24:23 GMT -5
That's what I hear. Bob Novak told me.
|
|
|
Post by showcase on Jul 19, 2005 13:30:22 GMT -5
I predict Clement, and not just because she's informed the 5th Circuit that she'll be out of the office for the next two days (today and tomorrow). The odds may be short, but that's where I'd put my money.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Jul 19, 2005 14:18:40 GMT -5
I called Karl Rove and asked if it was Clement. He said "I've heard that too."
|
|
|
Post by showcase on Jul 19, 2005 15:27:17 GMT -5
Further proof that Rove should be sacked. If he's blabbing to kchoya, there really isn't anyone that he won't compulsively unburden himself with.
|
|
|
Post by showcase on Jul 19, 2005 18:27:02 GMT -5
Well, since 5pm credible news outlets have been reporting that it won't be Edith Brown Clement. Guess her 15 minutes of fame passed in real time.
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Jul 19, 2005 19:43:06 GMT -5
Drudge says it's gonna be John Roberts Jr.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,303
|
Post by Cambridge on Jul 19, 2005 19:52:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Jul 19, 2005 21:41:46 GMT -5
Actually - looks like the White House leaked misinformation to the press (they sure are good at this whole leaking stuff to the press thing ...) in order to throw off democrats.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Jul 19, 2005 21:56:12 GMT -5
I have seen only the fringe left People for the American Way attack this choice thus far, but it is early. Planned Parenthood, frankly by any reasonable definition an extremist group themselves, said tonight only that they reserved the right to attack him soon. Looks like Bush threw some playaction and the defense bit hard and were caught a bit short when they saw Clement didn't have the pigskin.
The legal talking heads, not the partisan groups, so far seem unanimous on the major networks; he is well qualified and will get the nod is the Tuesday night consensus." It may change, but Gore's lawyer David Boises couldn't really find anything bad to say about him.
The guy looks like a legal superstar for what its worth:
"He graduated summa cum laude from Harvard University with a Bachelor of Arts degree in 1976 and received his law degree magna cum laude from Harvard Law School (where he was managing editor of the Harvard Law Review) in 1979.
After graduation, Roberts became a law clerk for Henry Friendly on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, and held this post until the following year. From 1980 to 1981, he was a law clerk to then-Associate Justice William Rehnquist on the Supreme Court.
From 1981 to 1982, Roberts was a Special Assistant to U.S. Attorney General William French Smith, under President Ronald Reagan—at the U.S. Department of Justice. In 1982, Roberts became the Associate Counsel to the President, and held this post until 1986."
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jul 19, 2005 22:20:46 GMT -5
I agree, thebin. At initial glance, I am impressed by the choice. On paper, he brings impressive intellectual capacity. Then again, so did Robert Bork and so does Antonin Scalia.
One thing to keep in mind with so-called professional journalists, however, is that they often like new things. Lacking a salient talking point from the left, they will undoubtedly run for the time being with what is being leaked from Rove's fax machine. So, when someone sees a summa graduate from Harvard appointed, the intellectual minions at Fox, CNN, and MSNBC will undoubtedly be impressed. Most of them don't come close to graduating summa to say the very least.
What is more convincing is when you hear from the Boises and Larry Tribes of the left that this guy is an impressive nominee. So, he has passed the sniff test, and it looks like it will come down to the all-important hearings.
I find it interesting that you call Planned Parenthood an extremist organization. I'd be interested to know what specifically you reference when you make this characterization. You are free to disagree with them, and they are controversial, but they are by no means at the extremes in this society.
Most Americans at this point want to see the preservation of the Roe decision, which is at the core of this debate and any responsible discussion of whether PP is "extremist." The United States Senate, at least, yesterday gestured toward PP policies by reinstituting the Mexico City provisions, which would allow US funds to be used to distribute contraceptives overseas. Not surprisingly, OMB quickly issued a SAP that indicated a veto if this provision does not come out in conference. Broadly defined, the Supreme Court has sided with their basic position in favor of a woman's right to choose, with the opinion written by a Nixon appointee.
I think most Americans oppose abstinence-only education, at least as applied in foreign policy. While education is a critical component of the process, it is absurd to think that problems with STD's, namely HIV/AIDS, will be remedied in Africa through abstinence-only education. Anyway, a decent post otherwise.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Jul 19, 2005 22:27:15 GMT -5
1. I am reluctantly pro-choice. 2. I am an agnostic. 3. With points one and two in mind, I can say with metaphysical certitude that Planned Parenthood is by definition an "extremist" organization, being that they are on the EXTREME side of the only argument they concern themselves with. Is it your contention that this is a significant chunk of the US populace to the left or PP on the issue of abortion? If not, than they are extremist and its not debatable. This isn't even a point of opinion. America last time I checked was more or less evenly split about abortion. But a group like Planned Parenthood is split about nothing, it is on the fringe in that it takes the pro-abortion stance in EVERYTHING THING THEY EVER SAY OR DO. For them, everything, and I mean everything comes down to one question and they "don't do nuance" when they judge on what the answer is.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Jul 19, 2005 22:35:25 GMT -5
This is on Planned Parenthoods front page.... "The nomination of John G. Roberts raises serious questions and grave concerns for women's health and safety." Grave concerns? Health and SAFETY? ? Extremism? Or Melodrama? Take your pick.
|
|
nychoya3
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,674
|
Post by nychoya3 on Jul 19, 2005 22:36:50 GMT -5
Like Jersey said, it's not a question of brains. Democrats know full well they're going to get a conservative, but they want a small "c" conservative - ie someone who shows deference to Congress and to Court precedent. It's really tough to know how someone will act once they reach the pinacle of their profession and are given a lifetime appointment. Even tougher with Roberts, who hasn't spent much time on the bench.
People will talk a lot about this or that brief he wrote for Bush I, but those are political, rather than legal documents, for the most part. Even writing that Roe was incorrect does not neccesarily mean he would vote to overturn Roe if given the opportunity. The issues are far more complicated than portrayed in the media or by either side of the aisle.
I doubt Bush would nominate anyone without REALLY, REALLY knowing what he's in for. Republicans have waited 5 years from this day. They know they've appointed 7 of the 9 sitting justices, and yet they have a court that stimies them on some of their top issues.
Bush's prestige and ability to personally push a nominee through is all but gone. But Democrats have other battles to fight. I wonder whether they can muster the will to really brawl this one out, Bork style. I tend to believe they can't, and that Roberts will be confirmed. If he had nominated a Janice Rodgers Brown, or some other total "in your face" nominee, it would be easier to hold ranks.
Oh, and Jersey is right on Planned Parenthood. They're political positions are far more mainstream than their pro-life opposites. And they do a hell of a lot of good away from the political arena. I do think it's a shame that one's position on abortion seems to be the sole determinant of whether you're "conservative" or "liberal". The court faces so many more issues - federalism, for one - that are so important and that so few people pay attention to.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jul 19, 2005 22:36:54 GMT -5
1. I am reluctantly pro-choice. 2. I am an agnostic. 3. With points one and two in mind, I can say with metaphysical certitude that Planned Parenthood is by definition an "extremist" organization, being that they are on the EXTREME side of the argument they concern themselves with. Is it your conetntion that this is a significant chunk of the US populace to the left or PP? If not, than they are extremist and its not debatable. This isn't even a point of opinion. The definition of extremist is "one who advocates or resorts to measures beyond the norm" according to the vaunted dictionary.com. I don't necessarily believe that the latter clause is fulfilled in the case of PP. As for the advocacy clause, I'd probably agree that PP is not the norm. However, the definition of extremist is set pretty low, and I believe you set the bar low. If the condition to be extremist is that there is not a significant chunk of population to your right or left, depending on the party, I think most advocacy groups would fall into this category and maybe even the political parties themselves. A significant chunk of the population does not espouse the beliefs of the Project for a New American Century, and I suspect that there is not a foreign policy group more to the right of them. However, are they an extremist organization? Methinks their policies have become the mainstream. When I think of extremist, I think of groups at the absolute fringes. Although members of the Christian Right have previously advocated terrorism against SCOTUS judges, they are not an extremist group by the public opinion definition because there is a sufficient group of red staters and politicians that allegedly espouse their believes. Although, one could argue they are extremist by virtue of their advocating extremist actions.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jul 19, 2005 22:38:39 GMT -5
This is on Planned Parenthoods front page.... "The nomination of John G. Roberts raises serious questions and grave concerns for women's health and safety." Grave concerns? Health and SAFETY? ? Extremism? Or Melodrama? Take your pick. As you are probably aware, he wrote a controversial memo for Justice containing anti-Roe language. For a group whose mission is to preserve Roe, I think it is a careful and thoughtful statement, although the mainstream media has a different message at this time.
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Jul 19, 2005 23:43:11 GMT -5
I don't think anyone knows what they are getting with Roberts. He's only served as a federal appelate courts judge for 2 years and thus has no paper trail left on how he views Roe, the right to die, and affirmative action - simply because they have never been on his docket.
Planned Parenthood is not an extremist organization at all. There is a big difference between a far right or far left group and an extremist group. I would say that handy examples of what extemist groups are can be seen domestically in the Montana Miltia, Tim McVeigh and buddies, the KKK, extremist christian groups that called for the deaths of abortion doctors, and violent Anarchist groups. I feel that a more suitable definition for an extremist group is not that they take a consistant view on a particular political issue or set of political issues, but rather that they do so through recourse to violent organized action outside of the field politics. By your definition a group like the Roman Catholic Church, which takes a consistant view on the death penalty and on abortion, is also an extremist group.
Planned Parenthood offers birth control advice (which includes access to abortions) in order to protect the health of the mother and promote family planning (hence the name). They, of course, have a view on abortion that you can accept or reject - however, it is very similar (in very general terms) to the way that the Roman Catholic Church offers guidance on contraception and teaches about family planning. Neither should be considered an extremist group just because they take a consistant view on a devisive issue.
|
|
CAHoya07
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,598
|
Post by CAHoya07 on Jul 20, 2005 0:02:03 GMT -5
Planned Parenthood is not an extremist organization at all. There is a big difference between a far right or far left group and an extremist group. I would say that handy examples of what extemist groups are can be seen domestically in the Montana Miltia, Tim McVeigh and buddies, the KKK, extremist christian groups that called for the deaths of abortion doctors, and violent Anarchist groups. I feel that a more suitable definition for an extremist group is not that they take a consistant view on a particular political issue or set of political issues, but rather that they do so through recourse to violent organized action outside of the field politics. By your definition a group like the Roman Catholic Church, which takes a consistant view on the death penalty and on abortion, is also an extremist group. Planned Parenthood offers birth control advice (which includes access to abortions) in order to protect the health of the mother and promote family planning (hence the name). They, of course, have a view on abortion that you can accept or reject - however, it is very similar (in very general terms) to the way that the Roman Catholic Church offers guidance on contraception and teaches about family planning. Neither should be considered an extremist group just because they take a consistant view on a devisive issue. Could not agree more. Anyone who thinks Planned Parenthood is an extremist group ought to have their head examined. They offer an important service to their community, preaching safe sex and the importance of family planning. Yep, real extremists, we ought to be trembling. Not sure yet about the SCOTUS announcement, but your statement on Planned Parenthood jumped out at me, I'm glad to see people firing back.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,752
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Jul 20, 2005 6:32:47 GMT -5
This is on Planned Parenthoods front page.... "The nomination of John G. Roberts raises serious questions and grave concerns for women's health and safety." Anyone get the idea it was more a "fill in the blank" statement that would be applied to ANY nomination whatsoever? That's what advocacy groups do--they preach to the choir. It wouldn't help their image if PP salutes the nominee and wishes him good luck and Godspeed.
|
|
hoyahoyasaxa
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Sead Dizdarezvic doesn't write term papers. The words rearrange themselves out of fear.
Posts: 464
|
Post by hoyahoyasaxa on Jul 20, 2005 8:28:44 GMT -5
Yeah. I'm sure Planned Parenthood was going to oppose any Bush nominee, unless they were specifically pro-choice. The reaction by advocacy groups on both sides was essentially going to be "fill in the blank." Conservative groups were going to say "Confirm now" and liberal groups were going to say "this judge is going to ruin America" no matter who was picked. The key reaction is that of the moderates in both parties. So far, it appears that they like the pick.
|
|