Vague on social conservatism; hard right on federalism.
Here’s what I gather from my quick scan: Clement has a pretty thin record, so it’s impossible to tell where she stands on many major issue. (She is, in other words, a "stealth nominee.") Reading the tea leaves, the scuttlebutt seems to be that her support of the social conservative agenda is subtle, but her support of the rightwing business and regulatory agenda ("constitution in exile") is overt and robust. This is more or less what I predicted here.
Jeffrey Rosen writes:
How would a stealth candidate like Clement perform on the Supreme Court? Everything about her record suggests she would enthusiastically support the federalism revolution. This year, for example, a group of Texas developers challenged the constitutionality of the Endangered Species Act after the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in an effort to protect a rare species of underground bugs, denied them a permit to develop a shopping mall. The Texas appellate court rejected the challenge, but Clement joined a blistering dissent by Judge Edith Jones (another possible Bush Supreme Court nominee) criticizing the panel for crafting “a constitutionally limitless theory of federal protection.”
From the right side of things, check out this NRO essay by Hadley Arkes.
Of course, Wonkette reports that, according to ABC News, it won’t be Clement at all, so maybe all this doesn’t matter.
Update [2005-7-19 15:11:17 by Dave Roberts]: See also this from Think Progress.