Harry Reid supports Antonin Scalia for Chief Justice

[roguevalley]

Sent him an email about MY thoughts. How about you? How much is America worth to you?

-----------------------------------------------

www.americablog.org:

Senate Dem Leader Harry Reid will support Antonin "Just Say No to Masturbation" Scalia as chief justice
by John in DC - 12/6/2004 11:44:50 AM

Ah, the courage that is Democrats. Brings a tear to my eye.

Sure Reid critiqued Clarence Thomas, then turned around and said he'd support Scalia. We call that wimping out in DC speak. Beat up on Clarence Thomas to appease your base, then stab them in the back by endorsing Scalia EVEN BEFORE HE'S BEEN NOMINATED.

I was among those who worried that Reid was going to be a DINO (Democrat in name only), and he's living up to our expectations.

As for Scalia, it's time someone started a campaign demanding Scalia explain what he meant in his now-famous Lawrence v. Texas dissent when bemoaned the fact that states would no longer be able to regulate masturbation. I want to know why Antonin Scalia wants the government to regulate masturbation. And in what way? Frequency? Handedness? Style, technique? Or should only heterosexual married people be able to masturbate, and only then when they plan to procreate? And how's he feel about inter-racial mutual masturbation? Just asking.

I'm quite serious. A little money and we'd have a very fun campaign demanding the press investigate, and Scalia answer, the question as to what exactly he thinks the government role is in masturbation. Imagine signaling that up front - then see if Bush nominates him.

Time to expose the family values hypocrites for the wackos they really are. Does any Democrat, any funder, any organization, have the balls to do it? To fund it?

Sigh.

-----------------------------------------------

EMAIL THE GOON, CALL HIM, WRITE LETTERS NOW:

Reid, Harry - (D - NV) Class III
528 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
[phone]
Web Form: reid.senate.gov/email_form.cfm

[demnan]

1. Oh fuck the Democrats!

I really don't know how much more I can take!

[roguevalley]

2. I know. Mail them anyway. Why should they have a good day?

:+

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

8. Let's calm down and look at it pragmatically.

They both suck, right? They're both already on the court too. So why choose one over the other?

Scalia is 12 years older than Clarence Thomas. We go for Thomas, we get him a LOT longer than we will Scalia.

Simply put, there's a better chance that we'll only have Scalia for a short time than there is with Clarence Thomas.

[leesa]

32. Sounds like wimpy dem logic. Yes, he will probably be installed

but that does NOT mean you support his installation. This is the guy who just took Cheney duck hunting right before deciding to keep the PUBLIC energy records secret based on flimsy reasoning. This is the guy who committed treason in Dec 2000 by installing an unelected president into the WH. This guy's a criminal. You DON'T support criminals...ever.

[stopthenoise]

36. Scalia's a prick but

this is not the most vital issue. First, I would rather have Scalia than Thomas because, as has already been said, he's older and will probably leave the bench sooner. And, we need a functioning Supreme Court. The Chief Justice has some power but the overall makeup of the court is more important. Let's not waste any bad publicity we can take in fighting who's made CJ. Let's fight appointees.

[genius]

27. If this is true, we need to call for Reid's resignation.

We will still have a filibusterable minority. Durbin will be leader and, get this, any Senator can put a hold on a bill. In otherwords, we have a nuclear option and haven't been using it. Feingold could have stopped USA-PATIROT. They need all the Senators to agree before a bill will come to the floor.

[zacho]

42. Reid is awesome

He is a good spokesman, he's the type that you genuinely want to root for in interviews.

Secondly he has a portrait of Mark Twain above his office. He's a real personality and the Democrats need a new personality (Joe Biden still is pretty good)to hit the talk shows. He's a like a kinder gentler cowboy, and we need that to counteract *.

Thirdly he refered to wall street as fat cats. I've been alternating between fat cats and robber barons in arguing the case against privitization.

Fourth, he realizes that abortion is not morally right. I know this will come under a lot of protest, but the democrats need to move away from their pro-choice core. We don't argue abortion in moral terms, and the way to do that is discuss poverty. Reid hinted at this by saying that if Roe v. Wade was overruled we could have all sorts of problems.

Fifth, he's from Nevada. Forget the midwest, the west is where we need to expand our base to.

Sixth, he's blunt and not nuance. People like to hear a simple message.

This man is a very promising and I predict effective spokesman for the Democrats.

[demwing]

54. Reid Is LDS,

thats Latter Day Saint, as in the veritable State sanctioned religion of Utah. Yeah, Utah, as in the most Republican, Bush Supporting state in the Nation...

Why is the guy our Minority Leader?

Why does our party have its head up its collective ass?

When are we going to be able to stop asking these types of questions?

On edit - I know that being a member of the LDS church doesn't mean you automatically support Bush. I live in Utah. But the facty is that Utah is something like 90% LDS, and Utah gave Bush a higher % of it's vote than any other state.

[From the south]

3. Maybe its because Scalia is said to be a heavy smoker

And Reid doesnt think he would be in that position very long

[Ian David]

4. Scalia wants to regulate masturbation?

What will they want to tax next???

Damn, we're all gonna have to dress-up like Native Americans and ejaculate into Boston Harbor.

No taxation without masturbation!

[Ian David]

12. They hate us for our penises

I just had a rather colorful conversation with one of Reid's staffers.

I told her that if Reid wants to vote like a Republican he can runb as a Republican, and if he doesn't want to masturbate, that's his own business.

Yes, the Republicans hate us for our penises.

[SammyWinstonJack]

41. And just how does he propose to go about doing that?

"Scalia wants to regulate masturbation" What the hell does that even mean? :shrug:

[WI_DEM]

5. "His reasons are hard to dispute"

Reid says about Scalia's opinions. Yes he disagrees with many of his opinions but the reasons he arrived at that opinion are "hard to dispute" he says!!

Reid is not impressing me either. How can he be so critical of Thomas since he and Scalia are joined at the hip? Scalia is one of the most dangerous men in this country imo and our Minority Leader would support him for CJ? I guess Reid likes the title "Minority Leader." because if this is the way he is going to stand up to Bushco then the Dems will continue to be in the minority for some time.

[Leilani]

23. Reid's reasoning was sound

Hate on Scalia all you want, but anyone who follows the Supreme Court knows he's brilliant. Reid said he disagreed with Scalia's decisions, but understood his legal reasonings to arrive at the point he arrived at.

Thomas, on the other hand, is a bufoon. During oral arguments, he never opens his mouth. And his decisions are cloned off Scalia.

Also, many Scalia rants here are things taken out of context, which make him appear foolish. The man may be too conservative, but he's not foolish.

BTW, is anyone aware that on the case of imprisoning terrorists at Guantanomo, Scalia was the lone dissenting voice on U.S. citizens being held? He wrote that they should be tried or freed.

[The Flaming Red Head]

25. You know what he tells people he disagrees with? .

Me too.

[Leilani]

26. I'm not following.....Reid or Scalia says Me too?

EOM

[The Flaming Red Head]

38. the kind of thing he says to people he thinks are dumb (Scalia)

[zacho]

40. Agreed

Scalia is a leader,Thomas is a lackey.

I was impressed on the Guantanamo decision that Scalia sided with Souter (my favorite justice) in ruling that the constitution only provided the justice department the option to try the prisoners for treason.

[depakid]

53. OH BULLSHIT

More ridiculous "conventional wisdom." More lies repeated so often people bieleve that they're true.

How many of scalia's opinions have you actually read?

Not many, I bet.

The man is as intellectually dishonest and as lacking in integrity as almost anyone (with some notable exceptions) who's ever sat on the court.

Sophistry is his middle name.

His results oriented jurisprudence is as bad as Rhenquist's and the fact that Reid would even mention his name in connecion with Chief Justice just goes to show the depths to which the Democratic party has sunk-

and why I'm no longer among its members.

[ramapo]

6. They're hopeless

I heard Reid on Franken's show today and was thinking, "Gee this guy sounds like he may have some spine". Fooled again:(

Why be surprised? Look back and see what the vote was to confirm Scalia in the first place. I'm thinking it was 90-something to a few.

[rockymountaindem]

7. Well, the only other choice is Clarence Thomas.

So I don't see why people are getting upset. It's a rock and a hard place folks. Evidently Reid supports Scalia over Thomas. He'd probably prefer one of the liberals on the court if he had his choice of any, but we don't get to pick from all 9. We're left to choose between Scalia and Thomas. Evidently Reid thinks that Scalia is more intelligent than Thomas, even if their views are equally opposed to his own.

But hey, why think about things logically when we could just have another "bash the Democrats" flame-fest?

[Uzybone]

10. Well said

the whiny wing of the left continues to beat up on themselves. If these guys had thier way we would be pulling 15% of the vote.

[WI_DEM]

13. whiny wing of the party

is responsible for most of the social reforms this country has had. Nice that you think so well of people who are strong democrats and actually believe in standing for something.

[Telly Savalas]

44. Not really...

First of all, a number of significant social reforms took place under Republican Administrations, most notably that of Teddy Roosevelt.

Furthermore Democrats who got things done weren't ideological purists, nor were they whiners. FDR, for example, was praised for his role as a power broker, allowing numerous competing interests to have an influence on the implementation of the New Deal. His ability to compromise and listen to other voices is a big part of why he was able to get so much done. "My way or the highway" is bad politics.

Going after Scalia would be jousting windmills. As has been noted elsewhere on this thread, it is certain that our next Chief Justice is going to be either Scalia or Thomas, so it's senseless to expend political capital making a fuss over it. Say Reid did get the caucus to raise a rucous and they stopped Scalia, ensuring Thomas's appointment. How does this make the country any better? Wouldn't the time spent trading one far right judge for another be better spent on issues that matter, like education, peace, health care, etc.?

Being a strong democrat and standing for something also entails choosing one's battles wisely. As the great political thinker Kenny Rogers said: "you gotta know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em, know when to walk away, and know when to run."

[sampsonblk]

59. Put down the lollipop...

and back away slowly.

My way or the highway is bad politics, but that's what the Repubs are using against us. It can only work if we continue to compromise while they refuse to do the same.

This isn't a problem of ideological purity. We have been getting steamrolled. Pimpslapped. At some point, we have to refuse to go along further. I don't care which fight we choose. But we have to choose one. If we continue to compromise and they don't, where does that leave us? OUT.

Right now, Bush is getting a LOT done with his my way or the highway politics. At what point does your view start to pay dividends?

[WI_DEM]

11. It's not the only other choice

They don't have to and as a rule they don't select a sitting member of the court to be CJ. They both are pretty miserable imo and have plenty of grounds for the Dems to oppose.

[rockymountaindem]

14. So how would we go about getting someone different?

Please keep in mind that the Republicans have a 55 seat majority and our hands are a little bit tied...

[WI_DEM]

19. 55 seats, yes, but it takes 60 votes to close off a filibuster

We shouldn't have to accept one of the most conservative jurists as chief lying down. There are moderate Republicans such as Kennedy or Souter (who was appointed by George the First) who would fill the bill and have a much better chance of getting through the senate unscathed and with dem votes and be a hell of alot better as Chief than Scalia.

[rockymountaindem]

21. Doesn't Bush get to nominate for the CJ position?

Why would he nominate Souter, who has been a giant disappointment to the conservatives who wanted him on the court back in the days of Bush I?

I mean, Cheif Justice Stevens would be nice, but Bush wouldn't do that, either.

[WI_DEM]

24. it is actually a strategy

We oppose his worse choices by being united and filibustering and then finally he has to choose someone more moderate to get him through the Senate. Dems did this with Nixon in the early 70's

[JohnKleeb]

29. Bush does pick the Chief Justice position

Oh btw I think we had a majority in the senate in the early 70's, its very hard to do this, I dont want Scalia or Thomas at Chief Justice either but I hate to say its bound to happen, hopefully a filibuster may work.

[Uzybone]

22. I agree on thw moderate Repubs

but if Bush nominates Scalia they will all vote with Bush. If the Democrats filibuster (I suspect they may on Scalia, and I dont even know if its an option) itll be nothing but a show. Im sure they will put Scalia through the paces in the nomination process. Even Ried said Scalia would have to sort out his ethics situation before he would support him.

[Telly Savalas]

45. So if we filibustered long enough...

they'd cave and appoint a liberal judge?

[Traction]

58. No.

If they filibuster Scalia and then Thomas, Bush may be stubborn and not nominate anyone else. And as much as it pains me to say it, I wouldn't blame him.

[Traction]

57. There is nothing Republican about Souter

Yes, he was appointed by GHWB, but so what? Poppy Bush appointed a liberal, and the right-wing still doesn't forgive him for this. If W selected Souter to be the next CJ, Congress would try and impeach him. Kennedy is a moderate Republican (as is O'Conner), but do you really think Bush will stab the religious-right (who elected him) in the back and nominate a pro-choicer? Extremely unlikely, and from the right's point of view, why should he?

[gottaB]

60. "no more Souters" is their slogan

I'm afraid your analysis is on target.

[WyLoochka]

18. O'Conner or Kennedy

are options also from the five, treasonous, law-breaking, SOBs side of the court.

Bush* could pull a dirty one on everyone and name some extrme ideologue Federalist Society creep who has not been on the court to Chief Justice too.

Anyway he picks - it will not be good.

[JohnKleeb]

28. people prefer to be cynical and eat our own at every oppertunity

"bash the democrats" seems like all we've been doing since November 2nd and frankly I am fed up with it, we eat our own too much.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

9. Clarence Thomas is 12 years younger than Antonin Scalia.

When you're picking between evil and less evil, you pick the one you'll be stuck with for the shortest amount of time.

[Ian David]

16. Tell Clarence Thomas to have a coke and a smile

[no_hypocrisy]

15. QUALIFICATION: Reid reluctantly would support Scalia. He has problems

with the impression of corruption floating about Scalia with him going on fishing trips with Supreme Court litigants like Vice President Dick Cheney for example. Scalia is not his first choice by a long shot. (This was stated during Meet the Press yesterday.)

[DistressedAmerican]

17. He's a Freakin' Pro-Lifer!

He clearly stated his anti-abortion stance on Meet The Press over the weekend. This is where we stand in 2004, a pro-lifer as Minority Speaker of the House. Should make confirmation of the new Bush nominated anti-choice justices a breeze. We can't trust either side! Its like that when public "service" becomes a well paid job!

[JohnKleeb]

30. umm Reid is a senator

the party minority leader in the house is Pelosi who is pro choice.

[liberalpragmatist]

34. Um... he's also said he's not going to allow pro-life judges

He's personally pro-life but he's led the effort to filibuster Bush's far-right nominees.

Read the MTP transcript. I think you'll be impressed.

[stopthenoise]

35. Well. . .

some of us are pro-life also.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

20. Filibuster or else!!!

DAMN IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

FILLIBUSTER!!!!

:grr:

[Q3JR4]

31. Um....

Chief Justice John Ashcroft....

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BrightKnight]

37. What does the opposition party do?

If we give them what they want they will give us more of what we want. Has this strategy worked for other opposition parties in the past?

[Freddie Stubbs]

39. What power does the Chief Justice have that the others don't?

[Blue Wally]

43. Biggest thing

He selects the judge to write the majority opinion. Depending on how that is written, it may open or close the door for further modification of the finding.

[rfkrfk]

62. diff between CJ and others...

The CJ sits front row, center,
in the yearly photo.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

46. With friends like Reid... Scalia is religiously insane.

Scalia believes in the Divine Right of Kings! Read my sig quote of his rantings....

[DaveinMD]

47. Completely untrue

It was a swipe at Scalia. He said he could support him if not for his ethical problems. It was a brilliant quote.

[ohioan]

48. Yes - he left a loophole wide enough to drive a truck through . . .

while sounding moderate and conciliatory.

Reid's answer was brilliant.

Democrats will have a hard time fighting Scalia based upon judicial philosophy and qualifications. If they go after him on those fronts, he'll skate in.

But just think of all of the issues about Scalia that can be put into the "ethics" framework: 1) Bush v. Gore; 2) Cheney cronyism; 3) prior restraint on speeches; 4) abuse of reporters who violate his rule on prior restraint, etc., etc.

[gottaB]

51. transcript

RUSSERT: Could you support Antonin Scalia to be chief justice of the Supreme Court?

REID: If he can overcome the ethics problems that have arisen since he was selected as a justice of the Supreme Court. And those ethics problems, you've talked about them, every reporter has talked about them in town, where he took trips that were probably not in keeping with the code of judicial ethics. So we have to get over this.

I cannot dispute the fact, as I have said, that this is one smart guy. And I disagree with many of the results that he arrives at, but his reason for arriving at those results are very hard to dispute.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38149-2004Dec5_5.html

***

I'm not sure what Reid meant by "we have to get over this," so I don't know if it's as devastating as it seems to you. I see what you're saying, though--thanks for pointing it out. Reid's position seems like a reasonable one, but I in my opinion Scalia is a radical ideologue and a partisan justice who is not the right person to lead the Court. I'd like to some expression or acknowledgement of that opinion from the Senate Dems.

[chieftain]

49. Folks , we are doomed so long as

the Democratic face to the world is limited to our Congressional leadership . They are more interested in their electoral situation and being welcome in the salons of power than aggressively taking on the Bush Cabal . The governors and a strong , combative DNC Chairman need to step up and fight for our country and our party .

[DaveinMD]

50. again

the statement was brilliant. It was a shot at Scalia questioning his lack of ethics.

[goobergunch]

52. These remarks are out of context. Read the transcript yourself.

RUSSERT: Let me turn to judicial nominations.

Again, Harry Reid on National Public Radio, November 19: "If they" -- the Bush White House -- "for example, gave us Clarence Thomas as chief justice, I personally feel that would be wrong. If they gave us Antonin Scalia, that's a little different question. I may not agree with some of his decisions, but I agree with the brilliance of his mind."

Could you support Antonin Scalia to be chief justice of the Supreme Court?

REID: If he can overcome the ethics problems that have arisen since he was selected as a justice of the Supreme Court. And those ethics problems, you've talked about them, every reporter has talked about them in town, where he took trips that were probably not in keeping with the code of judicial ethics. So we have to get over this.

I cannot dispute the fact, as I have said, that this is one smart guy. And I disagree with many of the results that he arrives at, but his reason for arriving at those results are very hard to dispute.

RUSSERT: Why couldn't you accept Clarence Thomas?

REID: I think that he has been an embarrassment to the Supreme Court. I think that his opinions are poorly written. I just don't think that he's done a good job as a Supreme Court justice.

from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38149-2004Dec5_5.html

[Doomsayer13]

55. Totally Disingenuous

In the same interview, he calls Clarence Thomas totally inept. He says that Scalia would need to overcome ethical problems - read inbetween the lines people - he's calling Scalia out as a corrupt.

Jeez, the DU hysteria squad never ceases to amaze.

[Pepperbelly]

61. true dat.

Totally hysterical over very fucking little.

[Q]

63. It's really not this one issue...

...it's FOUR YEARS OF GIVING IN to the Bushie Republicans that has finally pissed off many Democrats. This is simply another insult added to ongoing injury.

[Pepperbelly]

64. How is this an insult?

He SAID that Scalia was ethically challenged. Do you want Harry to call him a batshit crazy motherfucker as well? I don't think Morman Harry is going to do that.

[sleipnir]

56. Meet the New Boss, Worse than the Old Boss.

I'm starting to miss the less-milquetoast days of Daschle. I never thought I'd miss that worthless leader, but that seems to have changed.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

65. Gosh! Another "centrist" Dem sells out? How shocking.

Reid would probably just love to have Bush replace Rumsfeld with Lieberman.

The thought of the Democratic Party being in "opposition" is becoming more pathetically laughable every day.

The Republican wing of the Democratic Party scored again with Harry Reid.

[ArtVandaley]

66. This is where I give up

When the party's leader praises Scalia, the biggest fascist to ever sit on the Supreme Court, and says he would gladly approve him to be Chief Justice, I start to question why the hell I'm in this party!
Reid's appearance on Meet the Press was incredibly depressing. In 1994, the republicans took over the House and Senate by defining their ideology and moving farther to the right, creating a clear alternative to the Democrats. This is how you win, not by blurring the line between the two parties. We need to redefine ourselves, and being lead by an anti-choice/pro-Scalia republican is not the way.