Reid Says He Could Back Scalia for Chief Justice--Washington Post

[Demeter]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41270-2004Dec6.html


"Reid Says He Could Back Scalia for Chief Justice
Comments Anger Liberals And Thomas Supporters

By Michael A. Fletcher
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, December 7, 2004; Page A04

Partisans on both sides of the debate over judicial nominees voiced displeasure yesterday with incoming Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid's comments indicating that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia could make an acceptable nominee for chief justice.

In an interview Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press," the Nevada Democrat said that although he often disagrees with Scalia, he could support him to be chief justice of the United States because he is "one smart guy." Reid qualified his statement, however, saying Scalia first would have to overcome "ethics problems," including his refusal to recuse himself from a case involving the Office of the Vice President after accompanying Vice President Cheney on a duck-hunting trip to Louisiana in January.

Reid's comments startled lobbying groups preparing for the battles sure to come with the likely turnover in the Supreme Court in the near future. Eight of the nine justices are age 65 or older. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, 80, is fighting thyroid cancer and has missed the court's public sessions in recent weeks, generating speculation about who would replace him should he step down.

Members of several liberal activist groups called Reid's office yesterday to seek an explanation of the Democratic leader's comments and to say they would oppose the elevation of Scalia, one of the court's most conservative justices. "We would strongly oppose the nomination of Justice Scalia to chief justice," said Ralph G. Neas, president of People for the American Way. Nan Aron, president of the Alliance for Justice, added that "ethics issues alone" should keep Scalia from becoming chief justice. "


That's GOT to be the shortest honeymoon in the Party's history. Annulment, anyone?

[Jack_Dawson]

1. Paging Dem w/ a Backbone

Are there any left?

[rucky]

2. Look elswhere...

because nobody from the ruling class will fight for us.

[mmonk]

6. Simple answer...

no.

[JNelson6563]

18. Paging Dr. Dean

too bad he's not in office. We could use some real leadership about now.

Julie

[Jack_Dawson]

20. Agreed...

Signed,

Clarkie

[JNelson6563]

29. Cheers!

:toast:

[Maat]

38. Jack ... how about those Chargers?

I've been a season ticketholder for the last five years. I've been feeling a little guilty lately, because I can't seem to force myself to give them up ... I should because Spanos gives so much $ to Rethuglican 527's, the RNC, and Booooosh himself. But my friend told me that you can't disassociate with all Rethuglicans, and she's right. My husband's partners in his co. are Rethugs. But I'm not giving that money up, because I take it and fund my progressive causes with it, in addition to supporting my family! Thoughts?

[Jack_Dawson]

41. OMG how BOUT dem BOLTZ?

http://www.e-popp.com/media/San%20Diego%20Super%20Chargers.mp3

:toast:

[Maat]

44. San Diego Superchargers!

Thanks. Put down my deposit on post-season tickets.

[Jack_Dawson]

47. That's a no-brainer!

You've paid your dues watching them during the unwatchable years. You must have great seats now - kick back and enjoy watching a decent product, and paying $8/beer. D'oh!

[Maat]

48. Exactly. Thanks.

Take care!

[PurityOfEssence]

33. Nothin' but Demoebas in leadership

You can find some strong ones around (Feingold, Boxer, Durbin, Levin, etc.) but they're not at the wheel. The House has some real champs, too (Kucinich, Schakowsky, Stark, Frank) and to be fair, Pelosi does have some moxie.

Republicans are shameless, Dems are spineless.

[MarianJack]

3. What the &*^$^*...

...is he thinking?

Hay Harry, :spank: !!!!!

You're supposed to be leading the loyal opposition. FYI, the emphasis is on OPPOSITION, not loyal (to the moron, that is).

[snippy]

4. I actually don't care if Fat Tony becomes Chief Justice.

The Chief Justice has very little power and Fat Tony is not a consensus builder so I do not think he would be any more persuasive as Chief Justice than he is now.

If he is nominated for Chief Justice, then that means that there will be two confirmation battles, one for him and one for whoever Bush nominates for the vacancy on the Court created by Rehnquist's departure. I would rather the democrats fight the new nomination more vigorously than a nomination of Fat Tony to become Chief Justice. Neither of these possible nominations will change the balance of the Court. The most important battles will be over any nominations which do. The democrats could gain a little "political capital" with the public by not fighting too much over the replacement for Rehnquist. And we can point to that when the republicans spout their hypocritical lies about democrats blocking Bush's judicial nominees.

[Rose Siding]

9. Or dems could just stand up for what they believe with some consistency

Hoping to gain repub favor by pointing out how compromising they've been on some issues hasn't worked well.

They bumped 9 nominees or so out of how many? Better to call the lies hypocritical and retain some integrity.

[snippy]

15. If democrats don't start gaining some favor with some of the

republican voters who used to be democratic voters then democrat numbers in Congress will continue to decline. Those people need to be brought back to the democratic party.

Not every hill is worth dying for.

[Rose Siding]

21. That's the rationale that gained us Porter Goss

No favor will ever be gained from anyone when leadership wimps out.

[snippy]

23. How could Goss have been defeated?

The president is entitled to nominate whoever he wants. The public would never have raised enough hell about Goss to persuade republican Senators to vote against him. Nothing democrats could have said or done would have changed that. Republicans have the votes.

[Rose Siding]

27. If you don't fight, you can't win

If they had fought, this whole CIA purge issue would have been bigger. It could have been exposed as the partisan power grab that it is. It would have had a repub face.

They may have had the votes to confirm anyway but dems would have had clean hands and voters would have known where they stood.

[Bono71]

46. I don't diasgree, but the issue of who is Chief Justice really

isn't all that big a deal...considering the position wields very little power at all. The Dems would risk the ire of the public over a very minor issue.

[Rose Siding]

71. The Chief Justice decides who writes opinions

It's an influential position. He would also head the agency in charge of making rules for all the fed courts.

Crazy Tony is convinced that the founding fathers intended to write Christianity into the Constitution. No good will come of caving where he's concerned.

If the dems really targeted their criticism of him, the public might agree with them. But you have no worry; they will acquiesce. And that will be the impression that the public grows familiar with.

[derby378]

32. But, snippy...

If we roll over on our backs and pee ourselves just to appease the Republican majority, what does that say about us? We act just like the "flip-flopper" stereotype ** tried to pin on Kerry.

[snippy]

74. When you are outmanned and outgunned

you have to choose your battles wisely. I just don't think that fighting Scalia as Chief Justice is a battle worth losing.

Not every hill is worth dying for.

[Bono71]

12. Very good points..."Chief Justice" is a little bit more north of

figurehead. Save the battles for the more important stuff.

[flygal]

14. I just have to crack up at the fat tony thing - was that from the Simpsons

[snippy]

16. I first saw Scalia called Fat Tony here on DU but I do not remember

who used it. I liked it so I just stole it. If I knew who I stole it from I would be happy to give credit.

[fertilizeonarbusto]

24. Precisely

Fat Tony is in already. Save the fight for when they want to put ANOTHER fascist in there.

[Maat]

39. You sure are right, Snippy!

Blessings to you!

[elsiesummers]

42. Even if Dems don't fight Scalia - don't have to say he's acceptable either

Sure picking battles over appointments makes sense, but with those candidates that Dems aren't battling, unless they truely are decent or non-partisan choices, no need to virtually endorse back the guy, say he is smart and acceptable.
Examples of non-controversial Bush appointments: Christine Todd Whitmann, Donaldson has actually been both nonpartisan and somewhat effective (hell of a lot better than Pitt), Colin Powell truely acceptable at the time of his appointment, although he lost credibility since holding office, and actually Ridge was non-controversial although he proved to be weak, and the new HS fellow (forgot his name - former NYC Police Chief), while maybe not perfect, doesn't seem a highly partisan choice.

Bottom line - unless an appointment Bush makes is either non-partisan or a centrist pragmatist, Democratic leaders should say nothing positive about the candidate, even if they aren't mounting a fight against the appointee. No need to voice any sort of support for any Right Wing ideologues, even when not being overcritical of a candidate that they won't openly fight.

This is something Republicans do well - the only Democrats they ever praise are those that are actually on board for a Republican program - sort of a thank you for votes or endorsement of Republican agenda.

Democratic leaders could learn a thing or too about keeping their mouths shut and saying nothing - if they have nothing bad to say about an appointee then say nothing at all.

[snippy]

72. I agree that the democrats should not praise Scalia.

I think they should use the opportunity to hammer on Bush's plan to get Roe v. Wade reversed. They also should bring up Scalia's comments about the benefits of orgies and his erroneous statement about the safety of Jews under secular governments in Europe in the past. The democrats also should try to connect some of these odd statements by Scalia to Bush. I would love to see Bush asked about the benefits of orgies.

Democrats should pick some of the most outrageous portions of opinions written by Scalia and question him about them as closely as they can. I think Scalia has voted that it is not unconstitutional for the government to execute an innocent person. I think he also has voted to uphold random stops by police to check the papers of Americans . Democrats might be able to use some of these things to chip away at libertarian support of republicans.

In the end, I think the democrats should talk about Scalia's flaws, but say that if that is who Bush wants then they will vote to confirm.

[Strawman]

68. totally agree

it doesn't matter. Save capital for the important battles, which are the nomination(s) of the new justice(s). That doesn't mean that Democrats have to actually vote for the nomination or pay compliments to someone as icky as Scalia, but I wouldn't filibuster it.

In the end, the battle over the court is all going to come down to moderate Republicans and whether or not they decide use the nuclear option to kill a filibuster of a nomination. If the conservatives succeed and add two extreme conservatives to the court, I say we should do what my poly sci prof suggested, when we get reelected with a real mandate in 2008 after Bush fucks up the country to the point where it becomes obvious to a clear majority: pack the court with liberals.

[David Dunham]

69. Very astute comment

[wtmusic]

5. Reid is quite the glad-hander

More Republican Lite.

[aquart]

7. There are Thomas supporters?

Ye gods.

[AzDar]

8. Gawd. I'm going to stop referring to myself as a Democrat. n/t

[VegasWolf]

61. I NEVER refer to myself as a Democrat, I'm a Liberal. n/t

[Zorra]

10. Does anyone else think that someone/something is deliberately

destroying the Democratic Party?

Whose side is Reid on?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[reprobate]

35. You used the wrong tense. Should be "Has destroyed"

There is no longer a Democratic Party. There is only the Republican Party and the Republican Lite Party.

Corporate campaign money destroyed the party, and the DLC is the medium that channelled the money to the party. The DLC was started by corporate toadys to move the party more to the right, in agreement with their corporate sponsors. They were successful with clinton and even more so with Kerry.

How the hell else could the party nominate a candidate whose stated goal for the iraq debacle could not easily be distinquished from the incumbant's. IMO, this election was doomed before it started. Just look at what was piled up against us: electronic voting machines that were KNOWN to be bogus, election officials in the various swing states that were admittedly repug plants, dirty tricks, etc, etc, etc. And a candidate designed to lose-by just a little.

Meanwhile, the party leaders tell us to act like elections were still run by the Marquis of Queensbury rules. Sure.

I'm hoping that Dean can do something to turn the party around, but I'm not gonna put any money on it. If he cant do it, I just don't know where I'll fit in the political spectrum.

[Elidor]

11. What a stooge!

I'm going to turn green before this is all over. Fuck this party.

[madrchsod]

13. tony the enforcer

is pretty much insane. he`ll get the chief justice spot cause the demo`s will roll over and die.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

17. screw reid and the DLC!!!

[Democracy Died 2004]

19. Ahh jeez

It just keeps getting worse and worse.

[Baconfoot]

22. You know, people have tried to convince me that Reid's not that bad

I was open to the idea. Well...I wanted it to be true at least.

More the fool I.

[grumpy old fart]

25. Good Choice, Let's Get Sex back on the Bench...

Just imagine the "oral arguments" when fat tony takes the throne.

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1096473931020

[Penguin31]

26. Reid needs to enter the buying market for a clue..(nt)

[The Judged]

28. Strictly opinion here! Kindly excuse me if I digress & transgress.

The Italian's are the "who's not" of "who's who" in the history of the Presidency and the Congress, and with their support for Dominionism, they shall at least be able to have their Pope and the Vatican back in a more globally powerful position than as God's advocate and human embodiment.

The Italian Mafia in America has been virtually dismantled and made into a bunch of rats and street gangs, and outgoing United States Attorney General John Ashcroft has seen fit to ensure that Bonanno crime family head Joseph Massino faces the death penalty if he is convicted of his most recent criminal charges.

My question is, did the upper echelon of the mafia roll for the Dominionists? If they did, then could a motive be pinpointed for such a radical move. Do the Italians lust for power so much that they would supplant it with the resurrection of the Pope and the Vatican as a world leader in every sense, as it once was?

Is the current infusion of Sicilian mafioso into American mafia activities, a contributing factor that can show that this is part of a more aggressive and Vatican sponsored plan to allow the rise of the Religious right?

Does Democratic Underground have a forum dedicated to Dominionism yet, and if it does, does that forum have subcategories that direct the members to investigate it from more differentiated angles?

Thank you.

[barb162]

30. When Reid's name first came up for Senate Minority Leader, I was

shocked/. This guy is a closet (and sometimes openly) pug in many respects. Why did the Senate Dems nominate this IDIOT to be their leader. SO does it surprise anyone this guy would support a far right wing Supreme Court. It shouldn't.

When the Dem Party turns pug in a misguided attempt at trying to win more voters, it is just destroying itself. What the Dems need to do is stand up against a nominee like Scalia and tell the American voter there are better people out there that Bush could offer to the American people.

[booksenkatz]

31. Whip out the KY for another 4 years NT

[oly]

34. Look, we'll have(or have) one party disguised as two. The ruling

class will win(have won). The parties will fight over stupid details only. Nader is right.

[barb162]

51. you're right, things just keep getting worse; like it wasn't bad

enough that shrub got elected. The Dems are turning into pugs. Somebody wake me up from this nightmare.

[jobycom]

36. Friggin' Brilliant!

I like this guy so far. He just slammed Thomas, called him a national embarrassment, and has now set the tone that he won't approve a Bush patsy like Thomas anymore. He will attack a minority judge who is unqualified.

And to smooth it over, he says "Well, Scalia at least is smart enough to do it." He damns Scalia with faint praise, slams Thomas with a sledgehammer aside that empty skull of his, and loses nothing in the process.

DUers, some of you guys need to buy a clue. You can't tell a victory when you see one. We have no power, we're not going to win anything i this battle. Bush was talking about promoting Thomas. Reid smacked his ass for it, then to keep from getting slapped back as too partisan, he threw out a chew toy to appease the Repubs. We all know it's going to be Scalia. It's got to be one of the eight remaining. You can rule out the four liberals and the one sock in the wind. That leaves three. Of those three, O'Connor is almost gone anyway, and of the two remaining, neither is better than the other.

So it will be Scalia. What's the big deal? If anyone here has even the faintest hope that they will approve of anything, or even not outright be horrified by anything, that the Bush administration does over the next four years, then you haven't gotten the message. We are dead. We are outsiders looking in. We will have no power, no victories, until at least 2006. Get used to it. Learn to appreciate the little things in life, like smart-ass smacks against our enemies.

Speak to any Reagan-era survivor, it only gets worse from here.

[Demeter]

45. Sorry, I Don't See It Play Out That Way

If there is no line in the sand, Democrats have no credibility. If Dems do not defend their own principles, why would the average person think Dems would defend the public interest?

The GOP doesn't do subtle. Subtle doesn't sell. They call it waffling, and that sells too well. And it is waffling. Waffling is not what leads to justice.

[jobycom]

60. He drew a line, what are you talking about?

Did anyone read the article, or is everyone just responding the the media's spin in the headline.

Reid blasted Thomas, called him an embarrassment, and said he wasn't fit to be CJ. Then he gave a slight approval to Scalia. He said he didn't agree with Scalia, but at least the man was smart enough to do the job.

If you don't see the line, then look harder.

I agree that subtle doesn't sell, I agree that subtle Democrats are the bane of the party. There was nothing subtle in any way about what Reid said or did. People are reading the spin, not what he actually said.

[Runcible Spoon]

64. IMHO, intelligent and evil is scarier than dumb and evil. EOM

[struggle4progress]

49. Delicious! Harry might support Scalia but has to discuss ethics first!

[barb162]

56. back in Reagan's and Nixon's time, Dems had a mouth; now the

only thing I am hearing is cooperation and that kind of crap. No, we don't have to cooperate, The Dem party leaders can speak out in the best minority tradition through American history. Speak out against the corruption, the lies, the fact that Scalia is simply not such a hotshot jurist that he likes to portray himself to be. Speak out against Scalia's decisions and tell the American public what's wrong with them and how they have been hurt by this judge.
Moral values: anti-corruption, anti-lie, etc.

We would get a lot farther in the long and short run by forcefully speaking out against jurists like this, even if there is no chance we will win the immediate battle of Scalia being picked.

[jobycom]

58. Back in Reagan's and Nixon's time, we had the Congress

The question was whether we could get the conservative and liberal wings of the Democratic Party working together. The debate was louder because it mattered-- Reagan and Nixon had to listen to the Dems.

We got shit, man. Do the math. Add up how many votes it takes to win anything, then add up what we got. We can maybe get a good filibuster going on an important issue or two, if we don't overdo it and less all support. But if we launch a filibuster over which conservative SCOTUS justice gets to be Chief Justice, we'll lose half our own party.

Reid spoke out forcefully about Thomas. Great. He just killed any chance Thomas had of getting the job. Now it will go to Scalia. The only thing Reid gains by fighting that is a political black eye. He won what he could, with little effort. It was brilliantly played.

This is the same guy that called Bush a liar early on. So far I like him, as much as I'm going to like anyone else for the next few years, anyway. Screamers only help the opposition.

[barb162]

63. The Dems have to be the loyal opposition, although I would prefer

deleting the word "loyal." I don't think you lose support on a filibuster or other matters if you keep repeating to the American public here's the reasons why we simply cannot let this happen. We have to start getting indignant and outraged and show that to the American public. (If we do this and go along with this vote, it will hurt you, the American citizen and here's how; then give the reasons. ) SO even when some crap law passes because the pugs have the votes, we took our stand. Which is what the Dems should have done on the Iraq war resolutions. By going along with the pugs, all the pugs did afterward was throw it in Kerry's face and others that they went along with it. And then they yelled "flipflopper." It does no good to go along with these guys. Better to keep the sense of moral outrage against the stuff they're doing and keep speaking against them with the reasons. What's wrong with voting no on helping the pugs. It's far better than voting yes and against our interests.

I am glad he called shrub a liar on Yucca Mountain; at least he has showed he can stand up. But then he said he didn't know if it was appropriate. He should have forcefully said: of course it was appropriate. Dems should quit backpedalling and start taking some indignancy lessons from the pugs.

[barb162]

65. forgot something; makes no diff if we don't have the majority

in Congress; we have to differentiate ourselves from them and keep allying ourself with the average American voter. The opposition has power only through its willingness to speak out against the "wrong" being done by the pugs and being loyal to its expanded base of the American electorate. We cannot let the pugs define us any more; that's one of the big reasons we lost. We should start defining them as the party of the big money, anti-environmental, anti-worker, disastrous war, etc. interests and keep pounding on that. Like K. Rove says, stay on message (even though I hate typing that in just now).

[Bouncy Ball]

37. ....

:cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:

What does "Democrat" mean?

Crisis of faith..........

[barb162]

52. I think it means pug if you are in the Senate:

:primal scream:

[lthuedk]

40. You see? This is another reason why the Party is dead.

We need to bring back universal activism and confront fascism rather than mollifying it.

We are truly a one-party country.

[barb162]

70. yeah the checks and balances are gone as they control all facets of

government and the media. But we still have our mouths and can cripe to high heaven what they are doing wrong.

[0007]

43. C'mon Harry strap on your balls and knock off this two for a nickle

one for a dime type of politicking.

We need stronger leaders.

[barb162]

54. thanks , I needed a laugh: strap on balls

[MisterP]

50. victory through surrender! it's so Dada!

"there's a secret plan to stop the Iraq War! just sit back and trust the leadership!" "we HAVE to run rightist platforms! it's the only way to win!"
fool me once, shame on you, fool me a hundred times...

[WMliberal]

53. GACK! and i recall threads when reid was chosen as min. leader

saying "oh, he's plenty liberal" or "he's not another tom daschle."


pardon me

:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

[barb162]

55. yeah I remember those threads and some posters showed his

voting record and I was totally gagging; Democrat in name only

[WMliberal]

57. or how about the ones who'd point to daschle's

and say "he wasn't that bad either."

[shawn703]

59. I hate to say I told you so

But when you put a Democrat from a red state in your leadership, he's going to be more worried about getting reelected to that red state than pushing for Democratic ideals.

[VegasWolf]

62. Wonder if Reid and Scaley have gone duck hunting yet?n/t

[EndElectoral]

66. Aw c'mon Reid show some balls...

[genieroze]

67. Reid Says He Could Back Scalia for Chief Justice?

:puke: :mad: :grr: :puke:

[Milo_Bloom]

73. Honestly, why is this such a big deal???

Does anyone really believe that Scalia is any more conservative than Rhenquist? If you actually look at their voting record, you will be a bit surprised to find that Scalia has a more liberal record (granted not by much), but when it comes to some issues, Scalia has come down on the left side and was a few times the lone voice of the right siding with Ginsberg. (There were a series of cases involving face to face confrontation issues, where a child was allowed to testify from either behind a screen or via video and while Rhenquist and the other neo-cons said this was fine, Scalia sided with Ginsberg, Souter, etc.. (actually writing the majority opinion) stating that the constitution calls for face to face confrontation and that is what must be done (he even used shocking language in one of his opinions on another case saying that sometimes the guilty must go free to protect the innocent.)


Now, I am not saying that Scalia is an ideal justice, far from it, but the reality is that there just isn't any real difference between Scalia and Rhenquist.

IN short, this isn't the right battle to fight. The battle that needs to be tackled is when a new justice is nominated to the bench! Hopefully then Reid will have the fight to keep a wacko off the court!

[mtnester]

75. When's the wake?

My party is dead.

[StatBabe]

76. Reid's comments are taken out of context

I watched that interview with Harry Reid, and I must say that I AGREED with virtually everything that he said! Reid's point, which is being obscured, is that Bush could easily nominate intellectual conservatives and obtain bipartisan approval for those nominations. But that he needed to look for real intellectuals that are not lightning rods for controversy.

I think that Reid makes a very valid point here. George W. Bush made some nominations in his first term where he really invited controversy. For instance, Priscilla Owen was bound to be a lightning rod for controversy because that woman is ethically challenged and has made rulings that defy the law! Why nominate someone like that when there are plenty of conservatives out there which are not controversial?

Also, it is not mentioned in this article that Harry Reid talked about Scalia's intellect in comparison to Clarence Thomas whom he declared was an "embarrassment" to the U.S. Supreme Court. Reid made it quite clear that he would NEVER support Thomas and that Scalia had ethical problems that would have to be addressed before he would EVER consider him either.