Another Dubious Bush Judicial Nominee

Judge Robert Conrad, Jr., one of the four judges President Bush nominated last week to be federal appeals court judges sounds dangerous. Check out what Sen. Patrick Leahy said (scroll down) about him in 2005 when he was nominated to the District Court:

Listen to what he wrote about Sister Helen Prejean, one of the bravest and most caring people I have ever met. He calls her book, “Dead Man Walking,” “liberal drivel,” and shows nothing but contempt for her compassionate work with condemned prisoners. The rhetoric he uses is heated, and his bias for the death penalty is clear. Will any defendant in a capital case who comes before a Judge Conrad feel that they will get a fair hearing from him?

On Planned Parenthood:

Mr. Conrad’s view of the well-respected family planning organization is that it is a “most radical legal advocate of unfettered abortion on demand,” and argues they do nothing to reduce teen pregnancy.

Leahy also says then Senator John Edwards opposed Conrad's nomination when it first came up in 2002.

Wikipedia mentions "He is best known for recommending an independent counsel be named to investigate then Vice President Al Gore."

He's had a rather meteoric rise in the past few years, from U.S. Attorney in North Carolina, to federal judge in 2005 to Chief Judge (Western District of North Carolina) in 2006 and now to the Court of Appeals.

I think we need more information on Judge Conrad before his confirmation. How has he ruled while on the District Court?

< Bush Issues New Executive Order for Seizing Assets | When Did The Surge In Iraq Start? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    one also has to look at his nominee (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by scribe on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 12:20:16 PM EST
    to the Third Circuit - to replace Alito.

    Sholom Stone was, among other things, the long-time head of the NJ branch of the Federalist Society.  It appears Bushie nominated him without even talking to either NJ senator about whom to nominate.

    I have to ask - how many more sharpened sticks in the eye and b*tch-slaps from Bushie are the members of Congress going to take?  Because that is what these nominees are, and how they were made.

    Sholom Stone? (none / 0) (#3)
    by yudel on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 02:12:23 PM EST
    Do you have more information on this nominee and nomination?

    Hey! I know this guy! (none / 0) (#6)
    by yudel on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 03:29:33 PM EST
    Google of course answered my question. And Shalom D. Stone, esq., is indeed my former editor at the Yeshiva University student paper.

    I'll have to go back and re-read his editorials, but he certainly wasn't ideological nor particularly political. (Right there that would distinguish him from Alito, whose his motivation for going to law school was not to overturn liberal court decisions.) I remember being impressed with the speed and fluency of his writing.

    I haven't seen him since he graduated college in '83 or '84, so I'm grateful to the president for letting me locate him. (I googled Shalom a couple years ago but without a picture I couldn't identify him for sure.) Could he have become hard-core Bushivick in the past 20 years? Who knows. Could Bush have nominated someone who joined the Federalist Society in the '80s, when that was thing to do, but is at heart a sane and decent individual? That could be too.


    from all my sources, (5.00 / 0) (#10)
    by scribe on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 04:28:39 PM EST
    he's a stone Fed, with all that it implies.  There are plenty of seriously reich-wing types in the Jersey Rethug party (as in any other state's) who would not stand for anything other than ideological purity.

    Look at it this way - Bushie nominated him to the Third Circuit without consulting either home-state senator (Menendez or Lautenberg) about whom to appoint, let alone this guy.  That means (a) he knew he'd never get past their screens (even though both voted for the Torture Act last fall) and (b) they'd insist on someone more "moderate".  Plus, Bushie's in thumb-in-your-eye mode this week.  Again.

    Don't forget, either, that Roberts and for that matter Alito are reputed by all who know them to be charming guys, very humane, yadda, yadda.  And you see what kind of judges they are.  


    A thought re: judicial nominations (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by po on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 02:00:46 PM EST
    I've got a solution to the judicial nomination problems the Democrats have suffered from over the past 6 years.  For the next 18 months, Democrats should just say no to each and every nominee.  No one gets considered because (i) the country has better things to consider at the moment, (ii) W et al have royally abused the process in the past with no consequences and (iii) because we're tired of purported sheep who are really nothing more than wolves in sheep's clothing.  Fool us once, shame on you, but he's fooled us a lot.  It's time to wise up.  

    what (none / 0) (#4)
    by HeadScratcher on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 02:31:04 PM EST
    do you do when the tables are reversed? As much as you might not like this judicial nominee there will come a time when a liberal nominee won't be liked by someone on the other side. Should judges not be nominated who share the same philosophy of the president who nominated them?

    How about amending the constitution to say that the judiciary is appointed by the congress as long as it is ruled by progressives?

    Or, just win elections by doing what you said you were going to do when if you get elected?


    Headscratching to Headscratcher (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by po on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 02:56:49 PM EST
    I believe I made my reasons for engaging in this tactic clear and its not because I don't like the legal philosophy of the proposed justice.  The tables were turned, in the 90s.  We didn't like it then, they probably won't like it now.  That's not really the question though, whether the GOP or Democrats like it.  The true question is what's good for the country and its judiciary.  

    As a litigation attorney, I appreciate the role of judges in our great democracy more than many I believe. I also believe that the current administration has nothing but contempt for the rule of law unless it falls within the very narrow constraints of what passes for thought for others.  Law after all is how all peoples of a given population seek to live together in peace and harmony.  

    That said, I believe W has forfeited his right to nominate more judges.  Even when his nominees are rejected, he places them on the bench anyway.  He doesn't need the approval apparently, so let's waste the Senate's time on say, figuring out Iraq since no one else wants to bother. Since the President has contempt for the law, why should he be allowed to nominate judges -- presumably they will just share his contempt.

    The fact is that the Democrats have let more of his nominees take the bench than the GOP did when Clinton was in office. And some of W's nominees will be a thorn in our side for decades to come.   Hell, I dare say that I believe Clinton's nominees were selected for more of the true "right" reasons than those picked by the (Religious and corporate) Right when the GOP was in control. Rather than dick around with him on this, and listen to it some nonsense about up or down votes from those whose motto is do as i say, not as I do, I say put a hold on all of them until the next Congress.  We've got a lot of fixing we'll be doing then, might as well let them know up front.


    The Dems must give Bush's nominees a fair hearing (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by yudel on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 03:31:43 PM EST
    Right as soon as Fredo Gonzales gives full and honest answers to Sen. Leahy's questions.

    Yeah, what he said. (none / 0) (#9)
    by Sailor on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 03:59:04 PM EST
    A judicial philosophy? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Sailor on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 03:57:55 PM EST
    Should judges not be nominated who share the same philosophy of the president who nominated them?
    Fine, but then they should be rejected because they are religious extremists too.

    IRT what to do 'when the tables are reversed.'

    Well, the Dems confirmed almost all of king george's supplicants, the rethugs rejected almost all of Clinton's noms.

    So dems should "just win elections by doing what you said you were going to do when if you get elected" and they got elected so they should reject all of bush's religious extremists.