Reid 'Disappointed' Over Alito Pick

NewsMax ^ | Oct 31, 2005

[Hadean]

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid issued the following statement regarding the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the United States Supreme Court.

"The nomination of Judge Alito requires an especially long hard look by the Senate because of what happened last week to Harriet Miers. Conservative activists forced Miers to withdraw from consideration for this same Supreme Court seat because she was not radical enough for them. Now the Senate needs to find out if the man replacing Miers is too radical for the American people.

"I am disappointed in this choice for several reasons. First, unlike previous nominations, this one was not the product of consultation with Senate Democrats. Last Friday, Senator Leahy and I wrote to President Bush urging him to work with us to find a consensus nominee. The President has rejected that approach.

"Second, this appointment ignores the value of diverse backgrounds and perspectives on the Supreme Court. The President has chosen a man to replace Sandra Day O’Connor, one of only two women on the Court. For the third time, he has declined to make history by nominating the first Hispanic to the Court. And he has chosen yet another federal appellate judge to join a court that already has eight justices with that narrow background. President Bush would leave the Supreme Court looking less like America and more like an old boys club.

"Justice O’Connor has been the deciding vote in key cases protecting individual rights and freedoms on a narrowly divided Court. The stakes in selecting her replacement are high.

"I look forward to meeting Judge Alito and learning why those who want to pack the Court with judicial activists are so much more enthusiastic about him than they were about Harriet Miers.”

[OXENinFLA]

"Justice O’Connor has been the deciding vote in key cases protecting individual rights [i.e...abortion.] and freedoms on a narrowly divided Court. The stakes in selecting her replacement are high.

FOR THE LAST TIME, THE PRESIDENT ISN'T "REPLACING" O'CONNOR, HE'S FILLING A VACANT SEAT!! No where does it say when a justice is appointed does s/he have to vote in the same way as their predecessor. Ginsburg took the seat of Byron White who voted AGAINST Roe & Casey. Did the dems call for someone that held his same judicial philosophies back in 1993?

[Owen]

Folks,

The Democrats made a tactical mistake selecting Reid to replace Daschle. He's vulnerable and they set themselves up for the embarassment of having him voted out of office. That would be twice it happens to them, and that's just stupid.

But beyond that, I urge FR not to over-reach. We will likely be in the minority someday. Every measure we take to emasculate the minority party, especially when it's a minority party by just a handful of seats, will come back to haunt us eventually.

There is a conservative consensus in the US. There is not an overwhelmingly conservative consensus in the US.

[OXENinFLA]

HEY HARRY!!!!

[MNJohnnie]

Recognizing the United States as a singular entity advances the notion that we have a national government which is supreme over the States and the People.

In a case where local law and federal law conflict, which is the automatic winner?

[goldstategop]

Alito's pick squashes the notion the Supreme Court is a sort of super-legislature. We don't need to supplant the elected bodies by conforming PC notions of representation upon the judiciary. The more I look at Alito, the more I like what I see. I felt deeply ambivalent and then unenthusiastic and then hostile to Miers. My reaction to the new nominee is very different. He has an established judicial philosophy and a long paper trail. You already know how he's ruled and you know how he's going to decide cases in the future. The Left of course is free to object. But they didn't win this election. Bush did and that to my mind, made all the difference this morning.

("Denny Crane: Gun Control? For Communists. She's a liberal. Can't hunt.")

[You Dirty Rats]

We will likely be in the minority someday. Every measure we take to emasculate the minority party, especially when it's a minority party by just a handful of seats, will come back to haunt us eventually.

Does that mean you think the 'Rat tactic of filibustering judicial nominations -- not done prior to 2001 -- is valid?

[alarm rider]

If Searchlight, NV calls, tell them we have located their village idiot.

[You Dirty Rats]

Recognizing the United States as a singular entity advances the notion that we have a national government which is supreme over the States and the People.

The Constitution is supreme over the States and the People. If you don't like that, then call a constitutional convention or get an amendment passed to repeal Article VI.

[goldstategop]

Exactly. We successfully shot down Miers not because she was woman but because we felt deeply a quota system and mediocrity have no place in the selection of judicial candidates. You should pick the person for the job, whether that person is a man or a woman and its excellence that ought to be the guiding standard in the selection. This was a gutsy move on the part of the President, as gutsy as the one he made in picking Roberts. I mean this is a candidate with unrivaled qualifications and knows what to do on the job from Day One. And has a record to back up his judicial philosophy. For when we go over them, in Alito, what we'll see is exactly what we'll get. That's the point here.

("Denny Crane: Gun Control? For Communists. She's a liberal. Can't hunt.")

[Adder]

"Justice O’Connor has been the deciding vote in key cases protecting individual rights and freedoms on a narrowly divided Court. The stakes in selecting her replacement are high."

Psst...Harry....Thats what the election was about...

I can see not much gets by you, Harry "Fife".

[TexasNative2000]

Notice that Reid is the "Senate Democratic Leader" and Pelosi is the "House Democratic Leader"? The media will never call them the Minority Leader . . . . .

[milwguy]

I think Harry Reid was spot on. Why would the President fail, for the third time to nominate a Hispanic to the highest court in the land. Shame on him for forgetting about one of the most brilliant Hispanic legal minds out there. Shame on him for not nominating Miguel Estrada to this post. OOPS, I forgot, Harry and his minions in the Senate fillibusted Mr. Estrada. The idiocy of Mr. Reid's press release defies description.

[Politicalmom]

But is he also "DEEPLY saddened"? Bwahahahaa!!

[rob777]

My copy of the Constitution seems to have left that Amendment off. Can you please point out to me where the criteria that require "the best most qualified person" be picked?




There is a world of difference between the minimum LEGAL qualifications for a job and the practical qualifications.
For example, the constitutional requirements of for assuming the office of President are quite minimal, but would we really consider someone qualified for the Presidency if they had no previous experience in the political arena? There is no legal requirement that an engineering firm hire someone who actually has an engineering background, but very few would consider such a person qualified.

[JamesP81]

Does that mean you think the 'Rat tactic of filibustering judicial nominations -- not done prior to 2001 -- is valid?

The GOP has never done this anyway. So if we take it away as an option, it levels the playing field because, as things are, the GOP is operating at a self-imposed disadvantage.

[rob777]

I felt deeply ambivalent and then unenthusiastic and then hostile to Miers. My reaction to the new nominee is very different. He has an established judicial philosophy and a long paper trail. You already know how he's ruled and you know how he's going to decide cases in the future.





That about sums up my view as well.

[JamesP81]

Exactly. We successfully shot down Miers not because she was woman but because we felt deeply a quota system and mediocrity have no place in the selection of judicial candidates.

I shot down Miers because of that '93 pro-abortion speech. Other than that, she was OK with me.

[MNJohnnie]

Happy Alitomus!!!

[JamesP81]

The Constitution is supreme over the States and the People. If you don't like that, then call a constitutional convention or get an amendment passed to repeal Article VI.

Yeah, except that the Constitution exists solely on the sufferance of the people. While federal law takes precedence over state law, I don't think the founding fathers ever meant for the federal government to be as huge and bloated as it is.

Before the Civil War, it was always referred to as 'these United States' and it makes all the difference in the world, and that was lost after the Civil War. When that Sherman burned the South, more went up in smoke than just Atlanta.

[Owen]

>
We will likely be in the minority someday. Every measure we take to emasculate the minority party, especially when it's a minority party by just a handful of seats, will come back to haunt us eventually.

Does that mean you think the 'Rat tactic of filibustering judicial nominations -- not done prior to 2001 -- is valid?
>

It's probably best viewed as the legislative equivalent of stare decisis. The GOP has accepted it. If that is undone, it will be a maneuver unavailable to us someday when we are in a marginal minority.

Over-reaching is a bad thing.