home

Dems Commend Ed Prado for Supreme Court

By Jeralyn, Section Judiciary
Posted on Tue Jul 12, 2005 at 11:45:05 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The Democrats met with Bush today and suggested a few Hispanic judges as Supreme Court nominees. One of them is 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Edward Prado, whom I have often said would make the best choice.

Top Senate Democrats floated the names of potential candidates for the Supreme Court on Tuesday in a meeting with President Bush, describing them as the type of nominee who could avoid a fierce confirmation battle.

Several officials familiar with the discussion said Judge Sonia Sotomayor of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals and Judge Ed Prado of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, both of whom are Hispanic, were among the names mentioned as Bush met with key lawmakers from both parties to discuss the first high court vacancy in 11 years.

Draft Prado.

< Update on Judith Miller: How Did They Know | Say Hello: Fire Him Now >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Dems Commend Ed Prado for Supreme Court | 11 comments (11 topical)
    Re: Dems Commend Ed Prado for Supreme Court (none / 0) (#1)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:08 PM EST
    Tho I'd hope Dubya would listen, I fear his disastrous War on Terror/Iraq record will push him even further toward viewing his "legacy" as a more conservative Supreme Court.

    Re: Dems Commend Ed Prado for Supreme Court (none / 0) (#2)
    by ras on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:08 PM EST
    Bush is clearly taking the "advice & consent" role of the Senate seriously, and is soliciting advice from all parties before deciding on his nomination. Excellent. One may ultimately agree or disagree with the choice - that's what the Senators' votes are for - but there is certainly no problem with the process.

    Re: Dems Commend Ed Prado for Supreme Court (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:08 PM EST
    I'd just like to bring up one quick point here. Prado is a MODERATE, not a liberal, not a leftist. For the left to say the Prado would make a good choice clearly shows our willingness to compromise and find a middle ground that all of America can agree on. Too bad that the rightwing will not follow suit.

    Re: Dems Commend Ed Prado for Supreme Court (none / 0) (#4)
    by ras on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:08 PM EST
    Fenria, ABE lincoln's favorite riddle: Q: if you call a tail a leg, then how many legs does a dog have? A: Still 4. Calling it a leg doesn't make it one. Dunno enough about Prado to know how close your statement was to being accurate, but I do note that I can also rephrase it as: It was OK for Clinton to nominate liberals, but Bush should not nominate conservatives. Heads we win, tails you lose. You may disagree, but that would indeed be the practical effect of Bush going with moderates, isn't it? Republicans did not question Clinton's right to appoint whomever he saw fit, however liberal, because Clinton was the duly-elected president and his choices were expected to reflect his philosophy, even if his opposition disagreed with that philosophy. Now, they expect the same right for Bush. And they are correct.

    Re: Dems Commend Ed Prado for Supreme Court (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:08 PM EST
    ras wrote:
    Dunno enough about Prado to know how close your statement was to being accurate,
    The problem exactly.....and for that matter, always the problem with you rightwingers.

    Re: Dems Commend Ed Prado for Supreme Court (none / 0) (#6)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:09 PM EST
    ras: ginsburg: During her 13 years on the appeals court, Judge Ginsburg often sided with the more conservative judges appointed by Presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush. According to a computerized study of the appeals court's 1987 voting patterns, published in Legal Times, Judge Ginsburg voted more consistently with her Republican-appointed colleagues than with her fellow Democratic-appointed colleagues. For example, in 1987 cases that produced a division on the court, she voted with Judge Robert H. Bork 85 percent of the time and with Judge Patricia M. Wald 38 percent of the time. from mediamatters.org Clinton really picked a liberal there.

    Re: Dems Commend Ed Prado for Supreme Court (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:09 PM EST
    How about a Hispanic Justice and one from Florida (neither has ever happened before). For more, read this post.

    Re: Dems Commend Ed Prado for Supreme Court (none / 0) (#8)
    by ras on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:09 PM EST
    Fenria, You're kinda fun, y'know?
    The problem exactly.....and for that matter, always the problem with you rightwingers.
    We rightwingers? Really? Would you then mind telling me your favorite justices on the Canadian Supreme Court, and just why you favor them? And, just to maintain the parallel, your favorite candidates as well? Would, you for example, select Greg Brodksy? Give reasons why or why not, thx. Canada, btw, is the country on your northern border.Perhaps you've heard of our tasty smoked salmon? All of which misses the point, tho, doesn't it?, which is that Bush has the right to nominate whomever he sees fit ... as did Clinton. And the Senate shall confirm or not. Jlvngstn, See the last paragraph of my reply to Fenria. You may slice & dice Ginsburg's record as you like - tho not all cases are created equal, eh? - but none of that is really the point, is it? The point is that the president's picks should reflect the president's philosophy. That's how it's intended to work. As it was for Clinton, so shall it be for Bush. Cheers, guys. Thx for the conversation.

    Re: Dems Commend Ed Prado for Supreme Court (none / 0) (#9)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:09 PM EST
    Ginsburg and Breyer were both recommended by Orrin Hatch and as I recall, he was a staunch conservative. When Clinton suggested someone else, Hatch said no, they will not get confirmed. So your point is either deceitful or ignorant.

    Re: Dems Commend Ed Prado for Supreme Court (none / 0) (#10)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:09 PM EST
    JL, Wasn't the makup of the Senate a little different back then?

    Re: Dems Commend Ed Prado for Supreme Court (none / 0) (#11)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:09 PM EST
    Ruth Bader Ginsburg Nominated: June 14th, 1993 Confirmed: August 3rd, 1993 Consultation: Yes Minority Reaction: I think it’s an excellent choice,’ said Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, senior Republican on the Judiciary Committee. ‘She’s going to make a very excellent justice.’ Hatch, who said he was consulted frequently by the White House as Clinton zeroed in on a nominee, promised cooperation and said the committee would ‘certainly try to get her confirmed before the first Monday in October, when the court convenes. [AP, 6/14/93] Confirmation Vote: 96-3 Stephen Breyer Nominated: 5/14/94 Confirmed: 8/2/94 Consultation: Yes Minority Reaction: Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, launched debate today with a ringing endorsement of Breyer…’This is an honest man,’ said Hatch, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee. ‘He’s a man of immense qualificationst…I will support him with everything I have.’ Hatch urged his colleagues to confirm the nominee and praised President Clinton for being ‘especially considerate of this particular responsibility of the president’ in choosing well-qualified nominees for the court. [AP, 6/29/94] Confirmation Vote: 87-9 (Unanimously nominated by Senate Judiciary Committee) Hatch even wrote in his memoir Square Peg that he was the one who initially suggested the names of both justices to Clinton.

    Dems Commend Ed Prado for Supreme Court | 11 comments (11 topical)