Centerfield

The wingers at Redstate are already showing disapproval, saying the President promised them Clarence Thomas or Antonin Scalia, and Clement isn't either. Usually when they are unhappy with something the President has done, or in this case is about to do according to reports, that means he has taken the sensible course. There is also speculation that while Clement is pretty conservative she has stated in the past that Roe doesn't need to change. It looks like she is a perfect fit to replace O'Conner, and I hope the reports of her probable nomination are right.

Another story link....the first one seems to be a bit variable. It lost and gained paragraphs over the last hour, probably to re-writing.

There you go again, Tully. Gloating about predictions without making a point. I hope Bing doesn't get wind of this. Well, at least you didn't quote the National Review this time.

The Post is reporting the pick to be announced tonight at 9PM eastern. All signs point to Clement who, the article also points out, is a member of the conservative Federalist Society. Isn't that pretty much a requirment for New Orleans lawyer? In other words: BFD, right?

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

McClellan has asked all the major networks to carry the speech... Isn't a primetime announcement a bit unusual for this type of event?

Not really. Not given all the news noise about it over the last many months. If I were the Bush admin I'd ask for prime-time as a matter of course. It's a win-win. They carry it and you get your message out, or they refuse and look biased.

...Gets Rove off the front page, too!

I agree wholeheartedly with matt's notion of measuring my satifaction based upon who is bent out of shape.

It will be interesting to see how many democrats would line up behind such a nomination. My sense is that "Roe does not need to change" swells that line considerably.

And is why no one bought STOPCLEMENT.org long ago. I missed a major cash-in there--I should've bought it myself when I spotted it, and held up PFAW for a few shekels for the rights.

BAD Tully.

Here are some good links to check out both what the left and right are saying, or to get some good laughs depending on your point of view.

Redstate:

http://www.redstate.org/story/2005/7/19/102823/364

Kos:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/7/19/112413/331

The right isn't happy, the left isn't happy. Analysis: Clement must be a good pick.

While I hate to be a contrarian (yeah, right) I've seen a relatively positive response to Clement from the lefties.

Bush isn't going to nominate a liberal. But I don't think the left is going to make a lot of noise if Clement turns to be the nominee.

I agree, Mathew. The reactions from left and right have been very interesting to watch, and I think you're probably right - anything that makes both bunches queasy has to be somewhere close to the mark.

Carla, I think that sounds about right, at least from what I'm seeing so far. Knock on wood for the country's sake, we won't end up with a nasty battle here.

Yeah Carla, a glance at the comments further down in the Kos post are more favorable. You are right.

Something of note: She went to Tulane. I remember back when I thought I was going to go law school, Tulane was one of my choices until a law professor talked me out of it. His argument was that Lousisiana state law is out of the ordinary, and much of what I learn going to a law school in that state might not be applicable anywhere else. For what that is worth.

Since I've just cautioned the same over at Charging RINO, we have to be careful here not to get too excited. Nothing's confirmed yet, and we still need to watchful. Erick at RedState's saying now he's hearing it might be "the other Edith," which makes it a very different ballgame. Staaaay tuned.

The Hill is running a story that says Gonzalez is NOT the pick. Period.

Senior administration officials have told select conservative leaders that President Bush is likely to nominate either Edith Jones or Edith Clement, members of the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the conservative source said.

My money is on Clement. Literally. I got down $20 at 15-1 two weeks ago. So you can safely assume a big element of cheerleading in my views at this point.

LOL--SUPPORTCLEMENT.ORG and OPPOSECLEMENT.ORG were purchased and registered by the Leadership COnference on Civil Rights this morning.

Now that's true 21st centuryleadership.

Interesting post at SCOTUS watch:

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

Apparently, Specter's staff has sent the memo out on Clement.

Did you get that memo? Are your TPS reports finished? Yeah, I am going to have to ask you to work on Saturday... Riiiiiiggggghhhht.

Sorry, that wasn't SCOTUS watch, rather, it was the SC nomination blog.

Erick at RedState's saying now he's hearing it might be "the other Edith,"

How many Edith's are there? ;)

Jones would likely be a better pick. Mathew hit the problem squarely on its face: "There is also speculation that while Clement is pretty conservative she has stated in the past that Roe doesn't need to change".

As I've mentioned before, I don't want a conservative judicial activist, any more than I want a liberal judicial activist. Roe is a good litmus test: does the nominee feel that the meaning of the constitution should be parsed and then applied to a case, or, does the nominee feel that the best outcome of the case should be decided, and then the text fitted around that determination? Roe perfectly exemplifies the latter, and it therefore seems to me that any Judge who feels Roe was correctly decided - even if every judgement they have ever made reflects a conservative sensibility - is a bad fit for the bench, in my view. Conservatives are just as happy to use substantive due process to frame a "constitutional right to free contract" as liberals are to use substantive due process to frame a "constitutional right to abortion" - regardless of their desirability (which is a question for the legislatures) neither exist in the Constitution, and both rulings would be fundamentally invalid. I am optimistic enough to expect Roe to one day assume its rightful place next to Lochner as an example of Judicial Overreach, if not to say outright Activism.

So this Judge would perhaps be a better fit in some ways than Soutero, but I would again point out that the goal should be an originalist Justice, not a conservative Justice.

I'm beginning to think that the White House is beat-testing their new LeakControl 2.0 software....

At last check on Tradesports:

Jones 42
Clement 18
Luttig 15
Owen 12
JRB 7.3
All others below 5.0

A quick search of informed sources tells me that the real truth is that no one who actually knows is talking. At all.

This is almost as secretive as the Segue debut.

Things are very fluid over there. One Luttig trade just went down at 29.

The latest:

Jones 42.0
Owen 15.9
Luttig 12.4
Clement 10.0
Gonzales 6.0
JRB 5.1
All others below 5.0

And more:

Jones 31.5
Luttig 14.0
Roberts 11.6
Owen 11.0
Clement 8.0
JRB 7.2
Gonzales 7.0
All others below 5.0

First, should Judge Clement be the nominee, I want to say in advance that my earlier post about her--which Tully graciously linked above, since we apparently decided on her simultaneously--I didn't get any "double-secret background" information from the White House or anyone at USDOJ.

Second, having just been in Judge Luttig's presence for the Padilla argument today, it's very feasible that he could make the 90-minute drive to DC in time for the announcement. Other the other hand, if one were to divine knowledge of his selection--and surely he would have known by 9:30 AM EDT if he were going to be publicly presented at 9:00 PM EDT the same day--from his comportment, he certainly didn't seem like a man who would be hearing the case again on another bench. (As an interesting note, I'm not sure how the process would work if, as Circuit Judge, he sat on a case and was elevated to the Supreme Court before the opinion was written. Judges Michael and Traxler seemed divided--with Judge Luttig likely to come down for the government--so Judge Luttig's abstention would create a 1-1 split in the case.)

I've been trying to get my source on the phone all night, but it was happy hour and Jenna has apparently been otherwise occupied.

The AP says it's Roberts.

TJJD,
This is OT, but are you in a position to give us an overview as to what's happening with Padilla on remand?

www.stoproberts.us apparently still available.

I'll wait for the official announcement, but Roberts is certain to light up the left. He's got at least one anti-Roe statement on record, though it was as a government attorney, not as a judge.

My initial call on Clement was based on a female judge, under the radar, but with a recent confirmation track record (99-0), solid conservative credentials, and no strong anti-Roe position on the record.

As an interesting note, I'm not sure how the process would work if, as Circuit Judge, he sat on a case and was elevated to the Supreme Court before the opinion was written. Judges Michael and Traxler seemed divided--with Judge Luttig likely to come down for the government--so Judge Luttig's abstention would create a 1-1 split in the case.

I'm pretty sure that Luttig would participate in the case at the Circuit level, and then, if he were promoted to the Supremes, he would recuse himself if the same case came up there.

So what does everyone here think of the Roberts pick? He seems not to be as moderate as Clement or Gonzales, but not as extreme as Jones, Owen, or Brown. In other words, he's a mainstream conservative - exactly what Senator Reid said would be acceptable for Senate Dems. Thus, I would be surprised if a filibuster is attempted.

And it looks like SOMEONE got the word early enough to get money down on Roberts!

For me, where he stands on Kelo is a start. Let the questioning begin.

Roberts is a solid mainstream conservative, not flashy, and not given to "acitivism." Expect a fight anyway.

I made a nice, somewhat lucky bet earlier today -- I bought 50 or over at 80, sold 55 or over at 85; won both in the end. I also bet AGAINST Roberts at 15. :(

I'm out $20, but that was two weeks ago. I was kinda hoping it would come back in droves....

Clarification: "50 or over" and "55 or over" meaning the age of the justice at nomination. Roberts is 50.

And my double-secret background briefing seems to be lost in the mail along with my secret RWC check. Damnit. The dancing girls haven't shown up either.

One more comment--Leiberman last week offered Roberts' name as one of three that "could be considered without sparking a talk-athon."

I don't think there can be any question on his qualifications. Any real fights will either be over judicial philosophy, or "just because."

Novak says that Clement was the runner-up.

If only they had PLACE betting for SC nominations...