Month: July 2005

A troubling assertion, if true. I cannot vouch for that. Judge the piece for yourself.

The gist here. Bio here. I need to know a lot more before saying anything else.

You gotta keep up, I guess. It was way hot today, and if it was hot here, I can’t imagine what it must have been like in DC or NYC. So the domestic partner and I (yes, we have upgraded) took kayaks out on the bay. My favorite activity is to paddle out toward the tip of the Cape and then just lie out and drift back in with the current and the tide. There’s water lapping you the whole way, keeping you cool; and for a few moments I dozed off. Alas, the ziplock bag I put my iPod in leaked and so my most treasured little possession is now dead. So, apparently, is the nomination of Edith Clement. No television here – yay! – so I’ll have to catch the announcement later on the web. Pity. Clement seemed like a good pick to me.

Here’s theocon Hadley Arkes:

Edith Clement may be the stealth candidate who, for once, delivers to the other side the jolt of an unwelcome surprise. She may be the disarming candidate who truly disarms before she goes on to do the most important work that a conservative jurist at this moment can do…

And what do you think he means by that? Kos has a good page of linkage. Jack Balkin calls the nomination “shrewd.” Certainly looks that way right about now.

The government memo cited in today’s Wall Street Journal seems to support the idea that Valerie Plame’s identity as a CIA agent was indeed regarded as sensitive within the government, despite some assertions that her cover was no big deal any more. (Her company’s cover was another matter entirely). Money quote from the WSJ:

A classified State Department memo that may be pivotal to the CIA leak case made clear that information identifying an agent and her role in her husband’s intelligence-gathering mission was sensitive and shouldn’t be shared, according to a person familiar with the document… The memo’s details are significant because they will make it harder for officials who saw the document to claim that they didn’t realize the identity of the CIA officer was a sensitive matter. Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor, may also be looking at whether other crimes — such as perjury, obstruction of justice or leaking classified information — were committed… The paragraph in the memo discussing Ms. Wilson’s involvement in her husband’s trip is marked at the beginning with a letter designation in brackets to indicate the information shouldn’t be shared, according to the person familiar with the memo. Such a designation would indicate to a reader that the information was sensitive. The memo, though, doesn’t specifically describe Ms. Wilson as an undercover agent, the person familiar with the memo said.

Interesting. Maybe Rove had indeed said too much.

Here are some supportive statements from the past. One that jumped out at me: she’s “an iron fist in a silk glove.”

Here’s PFAW’s take. The right – so far – is strangely silent.

This from the Legal Times:

Perhaps the person on the short list who confounds conservatives and liberals alike is Judge Edith Brown Clement of the 5th Circuit, who has been on the bench since 2001. To her benefit and detriment, she makes both conservatives and liberals uneasy because she has not written many notable opinions, especially in hot-button areas like abortion and religious freedom.
Two of the most noteworthy opinions written by Clement are in the area of criminal rights and law enforcement. In Traver v. City of Edna, she wrote for a unanimous panel that allowed the plaintiff to sue police officers for violating his due process rights when they slammed his head against a car door during his arrest. In Hearn v. Dretke, a habeas case that involved a death row inmate who claimed mental retardation, she found that he was entitled to a lawyer to help with the claim — a conclusion, she noted in the opinion, she was forced to reach because of a Supreme Court ruling in 2002 that found executions of the mentally ill were unconstitutional.

I have to say it would be hard for the Dems to mount a campaign against this woman from what I’ve read so far. The religious right may, however, get a little nervous.

Here’s the money quote from her confirmation in 2001:

“Senator Kohl: We will start with Judge Clement. In your responses to the committee’s questionnaire, your answers to a question about judicial activism interested us. You said, “Certainly, once a judge concludes that the legislature has acted within its constitutional powers, the court’s role is to uphold the law. However,” you said, “in determining whether or not the legislative or the executive branch has acted within its constitutional powers, the court should be activist in its consideration of constitutional definitions, granting of powers, and guarantees of liberties in determining the meaning of the text.” Judge Clement, could you explain what you meant when you said a court should be activist?

Judge Clement: Well, I certainly didn’t mean it in a negative sense. Judicial activism has been criticized as when a jurist oversteps the bounds of the Constitution or recognized constitutional statutes and attempts to inflict the will of the jurist on either the legislative or the executive branch or the people. What I believe is that when legislation is proposed and passed and becomes statutory that there is a presumption of constitutionality. And to the extent, the statute should be upheld and the Constitution should be enforced.

Senator Kohl: Okay, a follow-up. When the Congress decides that an issue is a matter of national concern and that it significantly affects interstate commerce, do you then think that the courts should defer to Congress’ findings?

Judge Clement: Well, of course, if the law is passed, there is a presumption, as I said, of constitutionality. So I would like to have the opportunity, of course, to review the statute, review the language of the statute, make a factual determination as to what was attempted to be accomplished by the passage of the statute, and then evaluate whether it is within the confines of the Commerce Clause, if it is permissible.

Senator Kohl: All right. Judge Clement, would you describe what you think are the key elements of the Federal right to privacy, if, in fact, you believe there is such a right?

Judge Clement: Well, the Constitution guarantees the right of privacy and the due process protection must be enforced. A statute should be considered constitutional, but, of course, if it does not guarantee due process, then it should be studied very seriously.”

Of course, this is just the beginning of the debate, if Clement does turn out to be the nominee.

“[I]f I learned one thing in my years amongst the hyper-politicized neo-hippie fascists at Wesleyan, it was that everything you do, whether you mean it or not, is a political statement. The way you dress, cut your hair, who you sleep with and how, who you talk with, who you meet with, the ‘political spaces’ you create, the way you sneeze, tie your shoes, the way you do the things you do, it all implies a political statement of sorts. And you have to be oh so careful about the political statements you make. Thus, the intellectual discourse on campus went something like as follows:

‘You offend me.’
‘No, YOU offend ME!’
‘No, you are offensive!’
‘No, I am offended! And if you respond, that’s also offensive!’
‘Don’t silence my voice!’
‘Don’t silence MY voice, you straightwhiteuppermiddleclassmalehegemonist OPPRESSOR!’
‘Don’t oppress me with your labels!’
‘You think YOU’RE oppressed?!’

…etcetera, etcetera, ad infinitum, ad nauseum [sic].” – Peace Corps volunteer Philippe André Gosselin writing from Burkina Faso on his blog. (Mad props: Rex.)