Later in the article it says:

"Reid initially voted for Adegbile, but he switched his vote to no, giving him the right as Senate leader to bring up the nomination again at a later date."
So in reality Reid did NOT "join the Republicans". It does mean that Reid (or Obama) needs to get two Democrats to change their vote before bringing it up again. Here's a list of Democrats who voted "no".

Other Democrats who voted against the Obama nominee were Chris Coons (Del.),Bob Casey (Pa.), Mark Pryor (Ark.), Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.), Joe Manchin (W.V.), Joe Donnolly (Ind.) and John Walsh (Mont.).

btw, that Coons guy out of Deleware is really starting to tick me off.


-Laelth

He only voted No for procedural reasons.

"Reid initially voted for Adegbile, but he switched his vote to no, giving him the right as Senate leader to bring up the nomination again at a later date."

If he were to vote yes without the votes for confirmation he can't bring the person back up for consideration.

It's not an excuse.

Thanks for clarifying that. Makes sense.

but it is the rule

This is a nomination. It will not be reconsidered. Obama will not waste political capital on it.

See Post #1

He won't. Real world.

Whatever you think of Mumia's guilt or innocence, if you are in the Philly area, you would at least suspect that nominating someone tied to Mumia's defense would be like waving a very large, very red flag in front of a very large and very angry bull.

I just don't know why anyone would bother.

Because if that is the position of those in Philly, I'd like to point to the Bill of Rights which has a thing or two to say on the matter.

Popularity or unpopularity of the defendant is not justification to punish council for doing the job the Constitution charges him with.

The case, the trial, the judge, the whole situation was a hot mess. Mumia was a MOVE sympathizer, which was polarizing to begin with, & he didn't help himself w/his demeanor during the trial. The Daniel Faulkner (cop that was shot, probably by Mumia, maybe by his brother who was at the scene as well, who knows) peeps are almost fanatical in their activism about the case & Mumia to this day. I wouldn't be surprised if they were lobbying hard against this nominee. Poss. why Casey voted no, too, no point in getting burnt by this Phila hot potato. It just all beggars belief. It is a permanent hot mess where the lines were drawn long ago, and it will never make sense.

Abu-Jamal is still a *very* hot-button issue here in PA, and Casey wanted nothing to do with anything even remotely involved with the case. His Republican opponent would have labeled him a "cop-killer sympathizer" in a hot minute.

...you get screwed, defend a man for killing 8 people you get made Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court.


http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/obama-pick-targeted-where-others-were-spared

and the position is a civil rights commission chair, a rather toothless post unfortunately. my point being it's not like it's even a judicial position! Not that I'd have a problem with that.

Hide your bicycles.

"Several prominent Republicans, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), took the floor Wednesday to speak in opposition to the nomination and in hopes of swaying vulnerable Democrats facing re-election in red states."

I get this, but first off, not all Democrats voting against are up for re-election, and there is not a one of them who is that McTurtle will go any easier on while trying to remove them in the November election.

where the cops get to decide who gets to charge them with civil rights violations.

Disgusting and shameful - those who opposed his nomination are not democrats in any sense of the word, IMO.

I don't understand why Obama would even nominate him when I'm sure there are other qualified lawyers. It's like giving Philadelphians - who supported him overwhelmingly during the last election - a big middle finger. In today's divided political climate, he shouldn't "divide" even more.

Mumia killed a 24-year old cop, it took the jury (with 2 African-Americans) two hours to convict him. I know our legal system is supposed to be adversarial, but the guilt in this case is clear and established.

As the OP notes, a court agreed with LDF that Abu Jamal had not been granted a fair trial—a basic right in American society regardless of whether he did or did not commit the crime.

I think the real reason the GOP went nuts on him was his strong work defending voting rights before the Supreme Court last year...rights the GOP wants to take away from "blue" Philadelphians. He would have been a tireless fighter for voting rights as head of the Civil Rights Division, and the GOP needs to quash voting rights in order to win elections.

How long do you think it would take to find a case from their past that some might find unsavory?

Just a bunch of racist cowards in the Senate doing what they do for the cameras...

He wasn't even representing Mumia in the original trial.

I'm a Philadelphian, and remember these events unfolding in real time. There was so much wrong with how that trial was conducted it's not even funny. Yes, I think Mumia probably did it. But the guilt is Mumia's, not the attorney's. To punish him some 30 years later for Mumia's guilt is an injustice, and a real shame.

The Republicans and the 8 "Democrats" should be ashamed of themselves.

... who can afford it.

He's a complete tool and one of the most craven politicians in the Senate.