WaPo says an announcement may come as early as this afternoon.

The Supreme Court Nomination Blog has all the lowdown on rumored frontrunner Edith Clement. (Update: Rolling list of Clement’s noteworthy opinions.)

Jonathan Adler comments on lefty Nan Aron’s wishes.

Christopher Flannery likes Justice Alice Batchelder.

ProLife Blogs takes a look at the two Ediths.

FOX News reports Clement has been interviewed by VP Dick Cheney.

Update:

103pm EST. Bush will make announcement at 9pm EST tonight.

More on Clement from Hadley Arkes:

I would vouch for Joy Clement myself, and I would vouch for Edith Jones. But as I commend Joy Clement, I open myself to these searching questions from friends who have suffered the lessons of experience: If we know little, really, about her philosophy or jural principles, how do know that she will not alter when she is suddenly showered with acclaim from the law schools at Harvard and Columbia? Will she not be lured as she is praised in measures ever grander, as a jurist of high rank, as she “grows” with each step ever more “moderate” and liberal? Those who commend her face the risk of joining the ranks of those who offered assurance on Kennedy and Souter, and lost forevermore their credibility.

But even more unsettling than that, the willingness to go with the candidate without a crisp, philosophic definition may mark the willingness to act, once again, within the framework defined by the other side: It begins with the reluctance to admit that we have ever discussed the matter of abortion with this candidate, or that she has any settled views on the subject. In other words, it begins with the premise that the right to abortion is firmly anchored as an orthodoxy; that those who would question it are unwilling to admit in public that they bear any such threatening doubts. The willingness to accept premises of that kind, as the framework for confirmation, may account for a Republican party that has brought forth as jurists the team of Stevens, O’Connor, Kennedy, and Souter.

The gentlemen at Power Line weigh in on Clement…

John: “I don’t know enough about Judge Clement to have an opinion on her nomination (compared, that is, to the considerable number of judges about whom we are very enthusiastic). I would say that the last 20 or 30 years of history suggest that Republican nominees who do not have a clear track record of commitment to conservative jurisprudential principles drift to the left over time–some, of course, farther than others. I’m not saying that this is a law of nature, only that it seems like a pretty clear pattern in recent years.”

Paul: “As I said the other day, she was confirmed unanimously for appeals court judge in 2001 at a time when all solid conservatives were encountering strong resistance. She had a decade-long record as a district court judge, but Ralph Neas and Nan Aron apparently found nothing to object to. An attorney I know who has appeared before her has nothing positive to say. From a conservative point of view this woud be (is?)a high risk nominee.”

Ramesh Ponnuru: “I’m not convinced that it’s going to be Clement.”

Tradesports has Clement up 62.

Mary Katherine Ham at Townhall.com is monitoring developments.

On a related note, Austin Bay mulls over a GOP “northern strategy.”

More negative scuttlebutt on Clement.

***
Previous:

SCOTUS Watch: Rumors flying

comments (0)   trackbacks (23)