home

Sen. Reid Suggests Consensus Candidate for Supreme Court

By Jeralyn, Section Judiciary
Posted on Wed Jun 29, 2005 at 05:13:39 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Senator Harry Reid has proposed several consensus candidates to the Supreme Court.

Seeking a possible consensus nominee, Reid recommended Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Mel Martinez of Florida, Mike DeWine of Ohio and Mike Crapo of Idaho. Reid described them all as bright and able lawyers who would be strong additions to the nation's highest court.

I have to disagree. None of those would be acceptable to me. They are all either lacking in judicial experience or far too much to the right. I think Supreme Court Justices should have a proven judicial record and be free of the appearance of impropriety that comes with long-standing political loyalties gained through fundraising for Senate elections.

The best consensus choice would be 5th Circuit Appeals Court Justice Ed Prado. President Bush nominated him for the 5th Circuit and he was overwhelmingly approved (97 to 0.) He's been on the federal bench since Reagan appointed him to the Distict Court in 1984.

Judge Prado is the only judicial nominee of President Bush's that I have endorsed.

Draft Prado.

Update: Here's Senator Schumer's 2003 list of consensus candidates and Judge Prado is on it.

And Lindsay Graham says he's not interested:

“I fully understand and appreciate there are many conservative, strict constructionists who are qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. I’m hopeful this means that another pro-life, social and fiscal conservative will be acceptable for unanimous Senate confirmation to the Supreme Court.”

< Downed Helicopter: All 17 Feared Dead | Dennis Kucinich: We Need a Withdrawal Plan >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Sen. Reid Suggests Consensus Candidate for Supreme Court | 13 comments (13 topical)
    Re: Sen. Reid Suggests Consensus Candidate for Sup (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:39 PM EST
    In terms of tactics, especially with this president, it would be ridiculous to suggest to him exactly who we would accept...as he would never pick that person for the sheer reason we suggested it.

    Re: Sen. Reid Suggests Consensus Candidate for Sup (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:42 PM EST
    Hey, don't you have to win an election to propose presidential appointments?

    Re: Sen. Reid Suggests Consensus Candidate for Sup (none / 0) (#3)
    by jimcee on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:42 PM EST
    No, by the recent rulings from the Supreme Court it would seem we need more conservative Justices to keep the Gov't from not only stealing one's property but also from stealing a reporter's right to write about it without giving up their sources under threat of prosecution. No, I don't have a PHD but I know what is right and the Supremes are so off base recently that it is in-defensable regardless of one's political leanings. Unless one's politics leans towards the Trotskyesque or Stalinesque kind of thing. [insults to another commenter deleted, commenter warned.]

    Re: Sen. Reid Suggests Consensus Candidate for Sup (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:42 PM EST
    Prado would be a solid choice, which is one reason this administration will never choose him. At this point, with these poll ratings, they are desperate for red meat like this to toss to the rabid element of their supporters.

    Re: Sen. Reid Suggests Consensus Candidate for Sup (none / 0) (#5)
    by scarshapedstar on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:43 PM EST
    I saw screw with 'em. Whoever they nominate, MoveOn should run ads praising his liberal ideals. Also, Michael Moore should start praising Scalia tomorrow.

    Re: Sen. Reid Suggests Consensus Candidate for Sup (none / 0) (#6)
    by nolo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:43 PM EST
    Mike DeWine? You must be sh**ing me. That's not a serious list. That's bs.

    Re: Sen. Reid Suggests Consensus Candidate for Sup (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:43 PM EST
    It's a rope-a-dope. None of those rightwingers have a chance, and Reid knows that. He's proven he can be pretty sneaky. He's setting it up so that he will seem more reasonable after the wacked-out choice Bush makes.

    Re: Sen. Reid Suggests Consensus Candidate for Sup (none / 0) (#8)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:43 PM EST
    Cliff - No, you can propose all you want. Confirming is usually left to the winner. ;-)

    Re: Sen. Reid Suggests Consensus Candidate for Sup (none / 0) (#9)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:43 PM EST
    God forbid this admin nominated a person that everyone, except the extremes in either party, could get behind. Can't pander to the far right dominists that way. Note all Repubs were suggested The winner's get to confirm and the losers get to block.

    Re: Sen. Reid Suggests Consensus Candidate for Sup (none / 0) (#10)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:43 PM EST
    It pains me to say it, but what difference does it make? Judging by the Raich decision and the New London decision, the court seems downright anti-freedom. The so-called liberal justices were no help to the cause of freedom in those cases, in fact it was the dissenting conservative justices who got it right, IMO. Maybe, just maybe, when push comes to shove those same conservative justices will side with freedom if the court revisits Roe v. Wade. I didn't expect much in the Raich case, our belief in freedom always goes out the window when illegal drugs are involved, but the New London case.....my lord, what were the so-called liberals thinking? That decision was the most tyrannical decision the court has made in my lifetime. If those are the type of justices we are fighting for, I say again, what difference does it make?

    Re: Sen. Reid Suggests Consensus Candidate for Sup (none / 0) (#11)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:43 PM EST
    kdog writes:
    The so-called liberal justices were no help to the cause of freedom in those cases, in fact it was the dissenting conservative justices who got it right, IMO.
    What you are seeing is the radical left side of liberalism. Liberals, myself included, believe that government has a place in society. I left the Demos when I saw that a large number of liberal Democrats had become radicalized lefties and were no longer liberals. Welcome to the next stage of development.

    Re: Sen. Reid Suggests Consensus Candidate for Sup (none / 0) (#12)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:43 PM EST
    PPJ...In my ever-evolving political philosophy, there is only one absolute....the unwavering belief in freedom. Both modern day liberals and conservatives seem to be failing in this regard. Any official who sides with freedom on an issue is the one I will side with, regardless of general ideology. This time the conservatives got it right, for a change. I will support any candidate for the court who has shown he/she sides with freedom consistently.

    Re: Sen. Reid Suggests Consensus Candidate for Sup (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:44 PM EST
    I'm not a lawyer -- I decided to pick something that didn't pay as well -- but it is ridiculous to condemn the liberal members of the court over the New London case. It didn't change anything or come from nowhere. It is a clarification of a long line of legal precedent. They simply rejected making a "bright-line rule" -- something the court has generally tried not to do (correctly, i might add) -- and left it up to states and future court decisions to examine individual cases. SCOTUS does not, unless invalidating a law, decide how every case must be decided. They simply stated, for clarification, that if a government wants to give emminent domain property to a private entity, that it is not necessarily illegal. They did not say it is required. Governments, state, local, and federal, respond to one thing...keeping their jobs. If a government is threatening to use emminent domain in a very questionable manner...then let displeasure be known. They do no have to allow it, they just have to come up with a better reason than "you're a private entity." If a local government was going to do this to your house, and you didn't want it, you could bring a new case all the way to SCOTUS arguing that your case is different, in that it does not meet the requirement of societal gain through government action. More simply, this has always been the case, SCOTUS simply said that you have to have a real reason for not allowing it, rather than just, "it's not specifically the government building the project."

    Sen. Reid Suggests Consensus Candidate for Supreme Court | 13 comments (13 topical)