RAW STORY has obtained a copy of a one-page dossier prepared by the Democrats on rumored Bush nominee Judge Edith Clement. Two aides have given differing accounts of its origin; one says it comes from the Senate Judiciary Democratic staff, the other says it originated at the Democratic National Committee.
The existence of the one-pager is unsurprising but casts doubts on whether Democrats are serious about not prejudging nominees. Earlier in the day, Democrats put out another set of talking points for any nominee, writing, "Hearings are central to the nomination process. It is important not to prejudge a nominee before all the facts are in."
Democrats have identified several particular areas of concern: they believe that Clement offers limited opportunity for constitutional rights; restricts access to courts; is cozy with corporate interests; imposes her views above jury verdicts; endorses 'activist' courts; opposes environmental protection of endangered species; and is hostile to minority rights.
Advertisement
Earlier today, a veteran aide told RAW STORY that Democrats will engage in heavier questioning of Clement for a Supreme Court nomination than she encountered in her nomination to the circuit courts. This, too, is standard for high court nominees versus lower appointments.
The one-pager follows.
#
Edith Brown Clement
Biography
Judge Edith Brown Clement, 57 years old, was confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on November 13, 2001. She was previously the chief judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana, appointed by former President Bush in 1991. She graduated from the University of Alabama in 1969 (B.A.) and from Tulane University (J.D.) in 1973. After clerking for Judge Christenberry of the Eastern District of Louisiana, her legal career was spent in private practice in New Orleans, where she specialized in admiralty and maritime law, representing insurance companies, oil companies, and the marine services industry.
Issues of Concern
• Limited Constitutional Rights: Judge Clement is a conservative jurist whose opinions belie an exceedingly narrow view of the Constitutional rights of individuals. In almost every en banc case she votes with both Edith Jones and Emilio Garza. (21 out of 25 times)
• Restricts Access to Court: Judge Clement employs a narrow view of plaintiff standing (similar to Justice Scalia) which restricts citizens’ access to courts for redress of their constitutionally-based claims. (Parents for Educational Justice v. Louisiana State Superintendent of Education, 2000)
• Cozy With Corporate Interests/ Regular Attendee of Judicial Junkets: Judge Clement has attended more than ten of the notorious judicial junkets paid for by corporate interests. Ruth Marcus, Issues Groups Fund Seminars for Judges, Washington Post, April 9, 1998. This issue raised suspicions about her sense of government ethics and her willingness to refrain from activities that create an appearance of impropriety in her 2001 confirmation hearing. Despite questions being raised during her confirmation hearing, Judge Clement has continued to attend private judicial seminars sponsored by corporate interests.
• Imposes Her Views Above Jury Verdicts: Judge Clement has authored several opinions which demonstrate a lack of deference to jury findings on issues such as damages for pain and suffering. She has been criticized by her fellow jurists for substituting her views for those of trial courts and juries. Fifth Circuit Judge Reavley specifically criticized Judge Clement for violating the Arule of deference to jury verdicts@ in a case in which Judge Clement wrote the majority opinion greatly reducing the award to the family of a mother and 3-year-old daughter who died in a car accident in part based on her assertion that there was not sufficient evidence the 3-year-old girl experienced pain and suffering before dying. (Vogler v. Blackmore, 5th Cir. 2003).
• Endorses Activist Courts: In her Senate Questionnaire, Judge Clement said “in determining whether or not the legislative or executive branch has acted within its constitutional powers, the court should be ‘activist’ in its considerations of constitutional definitions, granting of powers and guarantees of liberties in determining the meaning of the text.”
• Opposed Environmental Protection of Endangered Species Judge Clement joined a vigorous dissent from a denial of en banc review, in which Judge Edith Jones questioned the constitutionality of an application of the Endangered Species Act to stop a development that would have threatened six species. The dissenters broke with other conservative members of the Fifth Circuit and the conservative Fourth Circuit, which had rejected a similar challenge; their logic would greatly restrict the effectiveness of the Endangered Species Act. (GDF Realty Investments v. Norton, (5th Cir. 2004).
• Hostile to Minority Rights: Judge Clement dissented from a decision granting class certification to a group of black policy holders suing insurance companies for allegedly paying lower benefits and charging higher premiums to black customers. The majority called her logic “circular” and wrote, “It is safe to say that the dissent’s novel approach is unsupported by caselaw.” (In Re Monumental Life Insurance, (5th Cir. 2003).
