Ed Prado For the Supreme Court?:
With the news that Justice Souter is retiring, and with thoughts turning to his possible successor, I'm reminded of the "independent grassroots campaign" -- headed by a group of liberal activists -- that received some attention in 2005 to urge the President to nominate Fifth Circuit Judge Ed Prado for the Supreme Court.
I admit I was dubious about the effort back in 2005. But I've been thinking about it a lot in last 4 years -- or at least in the last 4 minutes, since learning that Souter is going to retire -- and I think it's high time to take that campaign seriously.
You may recall that this group made its compelling case as follows:
But zoiks, people, do we really need to be so cynical about Supreme Court comfirmation battles? For shame, for shame. I think we should take these grassroots activists at their word. Indeed, I can only assume that whatever anyone said about the Supreme Court vacancies in 2005 will be exactly their position in 2009. Given that, there is obviously a significant grassroots movement to get Ed Prado on the Supreme Court, and I hope Barack Obama is listening to the movement. Stop imagining . . . Meet Judge Ed Prado.
I admit I was dubious about the effort back in 2005. But I've been thinking about it a lot in last 4 years -- or at least in the last 4 minutes, since learning that Souter is going to retire -- and I think it's high time to take that campaign seriously.
You may recall that this group made its compelling case as follows:
A Supreme Court Justice for All AmericansNow, I realize that some people figured that the DraftPrado movement was a cynical effort by liberal activists who actually didn't want a moderate. The cynics will say that Prado was the most liberal person with some GOP connections that the "grassroots" organizers could find, and they wanted to make Bush's actual nominees seem more conservative by comparison to lessen their chances of confirmation.
Imagine a Supreme Court nominee with a mainstream approach to the law who has earned the respect of both Republicans and Democrats. Imagine a nominee for the Supreme Court of unquestioned stature with decades of judicial experience.
Stop imagining. . . Meet Judge Ed Prado.
. . . Judge Prado has earned bi-partisan support as an extremely intelligent, moderate, fair-minded jurist in his 20 years on the federal bench.
Advise President Bush and your Senators to put an experienced moderate on the Supreme Court. Send them a message TODAY!
But zoiks, people, do we really need to be so cynical about Supreme Court comfirmation battles? For shame, for shame. I think we should take these grassroots activists at their word. Indeed, I can only assume that whatever anyone said about the Supreme Court vacancies in 2005 will be exactly their position in 2009. Given that, there is obviously a significant grassroots movement to get Ed Prado on the Supreme Court, and I hope Barack Obama is listening to the movement. Stop imagining . . . Meet Judge Ed Prado.
Nobody to the right of Marx should even apply. They'll be pushing for somebody left of Trotsky.
Academics:
Akhil Reed Amar
Randy Barnett
Erwin Chemerinsky
Alan M. Dershowitz
Richard Epstein
Lawrence Lessig
Lawrence Solum
Cass R. Sunstein
Lawrence H. Tribe
Eugene Volokh
Judges
Frank Easterbrook
Alex Kozinski
Richard Posner
Perhaps unlikely Obama nominees, but it doesn't hurt to amuse ourselves with our favorites. Mine is Randy Barnett.
We should just hyperlink this post whenever the inevitable charges of hypocrisy come up during this nomination (on both sides)
SpecterHatch et al. will suddenly discover the vital role the Senate has in closely questioning nominees and insisting on meaningful answers to make sure the judge is not "too" out of touch with the "mainstream". Of course this time there will be no point for the Republicans accepting their bluff on the filibuster.(And leaving aside my own petty interests, Prof. Strauss seems like a solid choice if President Obama is willing to nominate someone without experience on the bench)
Why don't you? :)
If Michael Badnarik, the presidential nominee of the Libertarian Party, had, by some miracle, won in 2004, I'd likely be on the SC today, assuming the LP also won all the Senate seats in contention that year.
Seriously, if that had happened I would suggest he nominate guys like Barnett, Solum, Epstein, and a few others I have listed here.
Imagine the posts and comments on this forum if I were on the Court. :)
Now imagine me with four others who tend to agree with me. (Yes, such people exist.)
You all have made a fatal mistake: leaving an extensive "paper" trail of what you really think! You aren't ciphers! It'll be trivial to Bork any of you on any issue!
Dang Souter retiring before he's entirely decrepit!
BTW, Tribe is a flip-flopper.
Well, let me take the rare opportunity to agree w/ Kazinski.
OF COURSE a tactical effort to secure the best possible justice under Bush, is going to come up with different names than will be heard now Obama is president.
It's not hypocrisy; it's the art of the possible, a/k/a "politics."
anyways...i don't think obama will be any more "liberal" in his appointments than clinton...
so souter leaving should end up being a wash...though one never knows how people will change once they get on the bench
-- Judge Margaret McKeown of the Ninth Circuit
-- Judge Johnnie Rawlinson of the Ninth Circuit
-- Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw of the Ninth Circuit
-- Kathleen Sullivan, former dean of Stanford Law School
-- Pam Karlan, Stanford law professor
-- Judge Ruben Castillo of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
-- Judge Merrick Garland of the DC Circuit
-- Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick
That said, if you can find some quotes from anybody who actually matters supporting the Draft Prado movement you are certainly welcome to re-publish them and hold them to it.
He gave the commencement speech at my law school (Northwestern) graduation in 1994. I have never in my life heard a worse speech. The phrases "self centered" and "egotistical" don't even come close to describing it. It was tone deaf, inappropriate, pointless, and completely out of touch with the reason for the event. If the speech is any indication of the man's ability to reason logically, clearly express his thoughts, and persuade others (and I can't think that the speech is completely unrelated to those abilities) then he shouldn't even be a lawyer, much less a Federal judge. Several of us walked out during the speech, not because we didn't agree with the content (it was all about Judge Castillo, no political content that I can recall) but because listening to someone telling you all about himself for 30 minutes was so extremely painful.
GG
Only those dumb enough to go by their real names. :)
When is the last time a district court judge was nominated for the Supreme Court?
Aren't the odds very, very high that it will be a woman? Ginsburg has been complaining about being the only one for a while now.
You have to go back to O'Connor and, before that, Rehnquist (as Associate Justice) for the last time a Supreme Court Justice came from anywhere than the the United States Court of Appeals.
2 vacancies is "a while"?
USA Today in January 2007 had an article where she said she was "lonely" with O'Connnor.
So, yeah, at least 2 1/4 years is "a while".
Nick
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.