The Next Supreme Court Justice nominee 2006-2008
By Troll Comments (65) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
There has been speculation that there is a Supreme Court vacancy during what is left of the Bush II presidency. The real speculation is here! http://www.thewsx.com/Main.php?do=stock_detail&stock=CTSTEV07
That's an actual 'Tradesports' type of thing on whether Justice Stevens will retire by Aug 2007. Click the time tabs to see more detailed trends. Other than finding the whole thing sort of crazy, I don't really have a comment on whether he will decide to retire or not. There is speculation that he is ill or will want a Republican to nominate his successor. Beyond all of that, I believe he is 89... tomorrow is a promise to know one.
With our current electoral disaster in play for 2006. Some people have been thinking this means doom and gloom for our next SCJ nominee. Others such as Ed Whelan think it won't be that bad as long as we pull a few blue-dog democrats along for the ride... either the newly elected or up for election in 08' so called 'moderate' democrats. http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjMzMzRmNzQ1NTUyY2NjNzBjYWE4ZWQ4ODE...
I think it will be a dogfight UNLESS they appoint a minority, if not a minority and a woman. Who? You can already guess.
Miguel Estrada
If the Prez is bound and determined to put a Hispanic on the SC. Miguel Estrada is probably the choice. He's been confirmed to lesser courts before... though that is no guarantee on another 'smooth' confirmation. He's been considered a 'Stealth Nominee' in the past so there is probably little ammo to 'Bork' him. That won't stop the Democrats from making hay over the nomination, but it may keep them from doing a full court press or tying up the nomination 'forever'. The obvious is this... will the Democrats risk alienating Hispanics, the biggest minority in the U.S., with partisan politics?
Janice Rogers Brown
She's got more 'baggage' since she has more history/decisions. The left dispises her for her mind AND the color of her skin AND her sex. However, she is a twofer for the nomination... a woman and a minority. The Clarence Thomas nomination was pretty ugly, but in the end he still made it thru. Will the Democrats risk alienating Blacks, the 2nd biggest minority in the U.S., with partisan politics? It's a sad situation that this is the discussion... but it is.
Strategy:
Nominating conservative judges has been difficult for the Bush administration. It's obviously now become that much harder since the judicial committee is not going to be in Republican hands (hey Specter... happy now?). Past votes were along partisan lines. Just to get out of committee will now be a challenge. Then all the rest of the nonsense, games and eventual voting.
I'd suggest they play Estrada as the opening move. If he gets thru. Fine. If not, I consider Brown a trump card. Normally she wouldn't be a trump card by herself.. but the American people won't tolerate a double 'Borking' of two qualified minority nominees. I'm banking that the Democrats aren't going to want to go into the 2008 elections thumbing their noses at the two largest minority voting blocs.
Anything they want done... they need to put on the table in quick succession rather than let the Dem's 'mull it over' forever.
"Took the nickname Troll long before BlogTrolls existed..."
If it's close enough to the '08 election, the Dems will stall as long as possible... So Bush may not have a lot of time to work with. He may need to get the most confirmable candidate submitted right away.
The longer he waits... the worse it will be. He doesn't have to quit immediately... he just needs to announce.
"Took the nickname Troll long before BlogTrolls existed..."
Any new SCOTUS nominee will be a stealth nominee. Schumer won't allow any real conservative to get in. Look for a hispanic pick but it won't be Estrada. I forget the name, but perhaps the guy on the FLorida high court.
He would not be a bad pick, but Bush should start with Estrada & JRB and then go to Cantero when both are blocked. That maximizes political gain out of the process.
Spitballs?!?! / Yo No Soy Marinero, Soy Capitan
Stressing both facts now.
This needs to be annouced now... so they can go try to 'run the blockade'. In addition... there is a warm fuzzy feeling from the Dem's right now. The longer this plays out... more and more de-fuzzing is going to occur. The closer to the 2008 election they get. The more the judicial committee is going to have to be partisan... can't expect the base to forget quick enough.
other fact
If the first nominee isn't going to be successful no matter who you nominate, then don't nominate the stealth nominee you are willing to settle for right away.
Play a strong card. (Estrada)
Then the trump card. (Rodgers Brown)
Then the stealth card. (Cordero etc.)
I'd be tempted for them to call their bluff and nominate two justices at the same time. "You are going to be jag-offs.. lets get this over with. Here are two nominees you can 'Bork'... have at it."
"Took the nickname Troll long before BlogTrolls existed..."
"Took the nickname Troll long before BlogTrolls existed..."
...Cantero.
The only logical choice is JRB. Let the Dems slit their own throats on her.
Conservative, Independant, and even some Democratic Americans really dislike the the Borking of qualified Judges by the Democrat Party. This is a winning issue for the Republican Party. Why on earth Andy Card, Karl Rove, and Laura Bush are unable to grasp this is beyond me.
No one could argue with JRB's resume. Her qualifications are impeccable. She also is the living definition of the American Dream. She is a single mother who has gone from the poverty of her childhood to the California Supreme Court (in which she was re-election to her seat by California voters by huge margins). She accomplished eveything through hard work and determination.
Not only would her confirmation battle "let the mask slip" from the faces of the Democrat Party once again, it would serve as a issue that would unite the conservative base.
If they Bork her, nominate Estrada. HEe is another impeccably qualified candidate. People forget that he was an Asst. S.G. under Bill Clinton.
If they Bork him, nominate Priscella Owens. etc... etc...
This is a winning issue for the Republican Party. For goodness sakes, can't the White House undestand that we win no matter what the outcome?
Tough on Terrorists... Demure on Democrats.
What the New Tone is all about!
"Took the nickname Troll long before BlogTrolls existed..."
The same court that voted unanimously to prolong Al Gore's recount beyond statutory limits in 2000? Do we really want one of those judges on SCOTUS?
The bad news: Conservatism is hard to sell. The good news is that it works.
As you may be aware, the FL GOV is a good guy and has appointed more conservative judges when given the chance.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
"The Road To Freedom Is Seldom Traveled By The Multitude" Madhouse Thought
Estrada has not been confirmed to a lower court, that was the point - the Dems fought him tooth and nail for the DC Circuit precisely because they feared him as a SCOTUS nominee due to his qualifications, ethnicity and life story. We know this because they put it all in written memos.
Brown may be a bit too hard-edged ideologically and rhetorically. I suspect she will not get the nod if Justice Stevens' health forces him out.
Bush could pick a white woman, most likely Karen Williams (Diane Sykes would be a fine choice for several reasons but with a Catholic majority already on the Court I suspect he would shy away from a third consecutive Catholic nominee unless he is picking a Latino). Harry Reid, who is close to the plaintiffs' lawyer lobby, may find her palatable because her husband is a big plaintiffs' lawyer.
Edith Jones is probably a little too prominently on record for overturning Roe v. Wade (ditto to a lesser extent for Emilio Garza, who has a tremendous resume - I think especially if it's a male nominee Bush will need someone who is a bit of a cipher on Roe).
Cantero does seem like a plausible 'dark horse' candidate, and potentially a good one but I'd need to know more.
The candidate who seems to get a lot of play but is probably not that conservative is Consuela Callahan.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
Hispanic Male/Female or Black Female
Althougth White Males really are in the back of the pack here. Is this Affirmitive Action? Yes... but in this position... it needs to be utilized against the Democrats.
Also... while Bush is on record pining for a woman... he's also pining for a Hispanic.
"Took the nickname Troll long before BlogTrolls existed..."
1. Miguel Estrada (Harvard/Harvard Law; Kennedy clerk; Honduran immigrant)
2. Janice Rogers Brown (brilliant minority and female; sharecropper's daughter gets on the Supreme Court - could there be a better American tale?)
3. Texas Solicitor General R. Ted Cruz (Princeton/Harvard Law, Luttig/Rehnquist clerk; would be a Hispanic John Roberts both on the court and dazzle like Roberts throughout the confirmation process; this is a peculiar observation, but he's also the type of light-skinned Hispanic that Latin American countries tend to elect to be their chief executives.)
4. Raoul Cantero (unfair, but his grandfather is a former Cuban dictator which could be a little bit tricky from a PR perspective)
Safe Conservative Confirmable All-Star:
1. Michael McConnell (might would be Mitt Romney's first selection if he's not on SCOTUS before then)
U.S. Solicitor General and former Scalia clerk Paul Clement should get Scalia's seat when that comes available. If Scalia stays on until he's about 80, then Paul Clement will be about 50-51. A good age.
Would be an absolutely fabulous choice. However, Laura might not allow Dubya to appoint another white male.
I knew Ted Cruz in law school, he was a year ahead of me. Good guy.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
For the casual reader and to set the record straight, Ted is 37 - though his resume and accomplishments reads like someone a decade or two older than he is. :-)
So, Ted Cruz is not exactly an old geezer as far as Supreme Court justices - and he'd be giving liberals fits for a good 4 decades. :-)
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
But, for the benefit of others, I thought I should make the disclosure. :-)
And I'm not sure that they wouldn't get backing from the public on that one. I'd say have to be 41+ minimum... regardless of qualifications of Doogie Howserism.
"Took the nickname Troll long before BlogTrolls existed..."
I would prefer Miguel Estrada be nominated ahead of R. Ted Cruz specifically for the age reason, but that said Edith Jones was the runner-up to David Souter when she was not much older than R. Ted Cruz.
She has proven that American constitutional jurisprudence would be decisively better off today if she had been nominated.
R. Ted Cruz's defenders could blunt that charge by pointing to his wide-ranging list of accomplishments and justifiably make the argument that a man such as he, who is more accomplished than many decades older, should be judged on his record of displaying superb capability instead his age. No doubt that Ted Cruz will be a better judge when he is 50 than he is today, but there aren't many 50 year olds who would make as good a jurist today as Ted Cruz will make in his late 30s.
I think that he could be sold as both a modern-day Hispanic Joseph Story and a jurist in the mold of John Roberts.
Bush will pick a senator from a safe red state on the theory that collegiality will prevail. Cornyn of Texas was mentioned in this respect during the last vacancy. Or he could pick a respected ex-senator like Talent (but not Santorum or Allen, although these gentlemen might find other jobs in the administration).
Politicians have invariably been some of the worst Supreme Court justices that we've ever had. My theory is that once they have tasted the power to legislate, they find it too hard to forsake once they put on the robes. It's their chance to get done what they always wanted to do as a legislator.
No more politicians. None.
We should go to the conservative legal and judicial monestary (i.e. Federalist Society members who aren't politicians) for all of our nominees to the federal bench.
any examples of this? Has a senator ever been appointed to the Court? Former president Taft was chief justice and I don't think he did anything obnoxious in his tenure.
1. Governor Earl Warren
2. Arizona State Senate Majority Leader Sandra Day O'Connor
That's about as far as I have to go.
I would rather Bush look to circus performers or rock band roadies for the next SCOTUS appointment than politicians. Anybody but politicians.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
and you own me a new keyboard
Just as every cop is a criminal, and all the sinners saints - Sympathy for the Democrats
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
Needing to get the nominee voted out of committee, and 60 votes now effectively required for confirmation, Harriet Miers or some similar air head might be the best we can get.
we could probably get any well qualified candidate through who was slightly to the left of an Alito or Scalia. After all, all of these appointments passed with at least six or seven democratic votes.
Of course you might have to make some deals.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
Cheap.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
to replace Stevens with another Roberts or even a Kennedy.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
than Harriet Myers. There is no way that debacle can be revisited.
"Took the nickname Troll long before BlogTrolls existed..."
Picking another Catholic, esp. an Hispanic Catholic, might have an advantage: Some Democratic Senator or staffer might be stupid enough to say something like--"too many Catholics." Bush, a non-Catholic, can run with "Dems. complain that there are 'too many Catholics'" all up and down the midwest.
"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke
Edith Brown Clement should definitely be considered. But also realize that she's getting up there. She's 58 now. In two short years, I think that she would have to be written off the list when there are so many strong nominees in the 40-55 age bracket.
As far as we know, that is. Can anyone think of a Sup Court justice who turned out to be more conservative than initially thought, or who became more conservative once on the High Imperial Court?
Yeah, I didn't think so.
With the next opening having the potential to finally deliver a genuine conservative majority, the radical left groups like ACLU, NARAL, People for American Way, etc, will demand that their Senate mouthpieces do whatever it takes to defeat any conservative nominee. They will risk going over a cliff to save the one avenue they have to implement their far-left agenda. If that means a filibuster, then they'll do it. And I think the only way they'd allow an up or down vote from the full Senate is if they knew beforehand that there were at least 51 'no' votes.
Whatever happens, we'll see the true colors of alleged moderates like Casey Jr and Webb. And it would be really interesting to see if the pro-Alito Dem votes (Byrd, Conrad, Johnson, Nelson) remained consistent and voted on behalf of their constituents and not the kook left.
He's older than the hills and this is his last term due to age... don't think he can be bullied into doing anything he doesn't want to do. In fact, if they ordered him around like a soldier... he'd probably do the opposite.
The real question remains... what would the unfettered Byrd do?
"Took the nickname Troll long before BlogTrolls existed..."
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
-------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone who claims that globalization is a conservative process is either a liar or a fool. - James Kurth
When conservatives voted against Marshall, Byrd joined them. When liberals voted against Thomas, Byrd joined them. He is the only Senator to vote against both nominees. What is that Byrd finds objectionable? What is it that those two men have in common? I think we all know.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
I'm pretty certain Ben Nelson would be a yes for any conservative who's not bombthrower. likewise Johnson, since he faces reelection in 08. Not as sure about Byrd or Conrad, but there's a chance. other somewhat moderate Dems that are up for reelection in 08 include Pryor (AR), Baucus (MT), and Landrieu (LA). that makes 7 (if we can count on them all, which is not certain with any Dem apart from the 1st 2, probably). Lieberman's newfound independence would likely lead him at least to vote for cloture for a well-qualified, non-bombthrowing nominee. that's 8, and we'd need 3 more. Casey and Webb are possibilities, though I think they're in Schumer's pocket, just like that liar Salazar. Dorgan, Lincoln, and Kohl would probably be the next most likely targets.
but again, apart from the 1st 2, we need a candidate who can give them (and even some of our own like Snowe, Specter, Collins, Murkowski, Warner, Stevens, and Graham - I don't include McCain, because he will fight for whoever the nominee is to try and save his presidential bid...and if he does it, I'd vote for him) some plausible deniability. JRB is not that nominee, sad to say.
I was holding out hope that he'd retire in 2008, but now that he's going to be the Finance Committee Chair, I think he'll definitley stick around. I agree that an upcoming election would make him think twice about siding with far-left interest groups and far-left fellow Democrats, but if there is no credible challenger on the horizon, then I think he'd feel more liberated to screw over the values of his constituents. Former Gov Racicot (he does have RINO tendencies, but he'd be preferable to Baucus) apparently has no desire to run, and even if he did, the glow of his former popularity may be gone by now. I think Congressman Rehberg would run if the seat was open (as he would have this year, and he would have likely held the seat easily...thanks alot Burns!!!), otherwise I think he' rather hold out and take on Tester in six years rather than face the more established Baucus.
I really hope that the GOP has someone on deck in Louisiana, as the post-Katrina demography of the state would hurt Landrieu. I think we'll see a furious effort by Democrats to get Katrina evacuees back to La, or to vote absentee.
The Pryor deal in Arkansas is similar to Baucus in that I don't think there is anyone on deck to really put pressure on Pryor. Soon to be ex-Governor Huckabee clearly could, but I haven't heard anything about him being interested. It seems he's more interested in a likely futile Presidential run.
The seeming refusal of popular current and former North Dakota Republican governors has made life much easier for Dorgan and Conrad. Still, Conrad did vote for Alito, though that was last year and in anticipation of reelection this year. And I don't think that the current governor of ND made his final decision not to run until early this year, after the Alito vote.
Johnson of SD is interesting, though again, is there anyone on deck to seriously challenge him? I'm guessing that the very popular, and just reelected, Governor Rounds will serve out a full second term.
For some reason, I believe the assurances that Schumer gave party big shots about Casey being in the bag on judges, so I have no hope for him. I think Webb offers a better chance for being reasonable on judges, but I still think its a long shot. The same goes for Tester, as I think he'll justify his 'no' votes on conservative nominees based on their support for the Patriot Act and 'unfettered Executive Power', or some other such nonsense.
Going back to the 2008 election season; of course, dark-horse challengers can arise out of nowhere. I mean, who thought that Webb would beat Allen as recently as June or July? But I doubt any of the red-state Dems will have a macacca moment.
right to consensual sex with old men as she advocatd at the ACLU. She has clearly moved to the right!
http://gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
Troll,
I disagree with your premise (that dems have a hard time attacking minority appointments) and your strategy.
I propose the best course is to nominate conservative after conservative after conservative. There are two reasons for this.
1. The dems will crucify themselves in the PR war by attacking every single justice nominee and blocking them.
2. We would eventually get one (a conservative) instead of a stealth nominee (read "liberal" nominee).
Other than that I'm glad you've brought up the discussion and hope we can fight the good fight and pick up that magical one more conservative.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe
We truly have at least a dozen well-qualified, intelligent, articulate potential nominees. Nominate one after another after another after another. Never back down. Never weaken. At some point it is going to become apparent to the casual viewer, and even committed democrats, that not all of the President's nominees are members of the VRWC.
In the end, the Ds look bad, we have a conservative justice, and maybe this confirmation process returns to what it should be. The Democrats are like children. If you give in to them and their tantrums (Bork-Kennedy) they just want more. They are insatiable (unless you want to satiate them with Bader Ginsburg), therefore, we must paddle their stubborn @$$e$ until they break.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
I definately need some of it... after this election.
1. The dems will crucify themselves in the PR war by attacking every single justice nominee and blocking them.
Who's going to crucify them? The Media? (I just giggled at my own joke.) PR war? Bush is a lameduck president fighting majorities both houses of the Legislative Branch and the 4th branch of government; the MSM.
They are going to come out and say all the crap they've said before IF THEY WANT TO and get away with it even more now. All they have to do is say its Bush's fault since he nominated the candidate. Sure it's retarded, but its going to work. Half the battle here will be to get the candidate out of the Judicial committee and how many people are really paying attention to that. Most people don't pay attention until it gets to the Senate. They could bury Lady Justice herself in committee and get away with it at this point. http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/figuresofjustice.pdf
I can imagine the snide comments "She lacks vision." "She's blinded by a originalist view of the law." "Her views on the 2nd Amendment are too extreme."
"Took the nickname Troll long before BlogTrolls existed..."
They don't even have to hold a committee hearing to turn her down. All Democrats have to do is sit and do nothing. Democrats already have fought against Brown. Haven't you guys understood that African Americans don't vote on someone who is black if they don't like their views. Look at Steele!
Any judge Republicans would like they aren't going to get period. President Appoints but Congress Confirms. Well good luck with the second part
Or so I've been told. They have to go to the full Senate for voting - or filibustering, although that probably won't be an issue.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
Judicial nominees didn't use to get filibustered by the bus load because they failed to pass some ideological litmus tests, either. The Democrats have no problem breaking from tradition when they think it is in their (or the People for the American Way's) interest.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
I know you are 100% wrong that they have to go to the Full Senate. Also you going to have to show me Senate Rule that requires Committee Schedule for a SCOTUS hearing. Democrats can stop a SCOTUS nominee 4 ways
1) By not having hearing
2) By voting them down in hearing
3) By allowing them to go to floor and voting them down
4) By filbustering them
http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/guides/supreme_court_nominations.cfm
1). The President usually will consult with Senators before announcing a nomination.
2). When the President nominates a candidate, the nomination is sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee for consideration.
3). The Senate Judiciary Committee holds a hearing on the nominee. The Committee usually takes a month to collect and receive all necessary records, from the FBI and other sources, about the nominee and for the nominee to be prepared for the hearings.
4). During the hearings, witnesses, both supporting and opposing the nomination, present their views. Senators question the nominee on his/her qualifications, judgment, and philosophy.
5). The Judiciary Committee then votes on the nomination and sends its recommendation (that it be confirmed, that it be rejected, or with no recommendation) to the full Senate.
6). The full Senate debates the nomination.
7). The Senate rules allow unlimited debate (a practice known as filibustering). To end the debate, it requires the votes of 3/5 of the Senate or 60 senators (known as the cloture vote).
8). When the debate ends, the Senate votes on the nomination. A simple majority of the Senators present and voting is required for the judicial nominee to be confirmed. If there is a tie, the Vice President who also presides over the Senate casts the deciding vote.
There is also this to examine:
http://www.bespacific.com/mt/resources/2005.09.22.crssab.pdf . The quote of interest:
"As part of Senate consideration, the Judiciary Committee holds hearings on the nominee and votes on whether to report the nomination favorably, unfavorably, or without recommendation. Regardless of the outcome of that vote, the reporting of a Supreme Court nomination sends it to the full Senate for debate and a vote."
All that being said, when it comes to 'mere' federal judges, we're toast [Sorry! The profanity rules need to apply to me, too].
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
...then nominating a true conservative is a winning strategy no matter what.
Until a nominee is confirmed, the Court coservatives have a clear advantage in numbers, if you count Kennedy as 1/3 of a conservative. (He actually votes that way slightly more often.)
If the Dems confirm, obvious victory.
If the Dems reject, nominate another conservative. Rinse and repeat as needed. Eventually they'll have to confirm someone or their petty obstructionism will be clear, digging Senate Dems a deep hole for '08, including any potential Presidential candiates like HRC.
"I am afraid that even after the American people will elect those who promise to leave Iraq, the U.S. will not do so." - Hamas leader Abu Abdullah
He's the one Bush will turn to.
Although I wish he'd pick JR Brown because she's more of a libertarian judge than a conservative judge and we could really use a libertarian voice on the Court.
With wiretapping et al, Gonzales would have a whithering confirmation hearing. He will not be tapped for SCOTUS. The 5th Circuit? Possibly. If he really wants it, absolutely. But not SCOTUS.
Bush should nominate JRB and then recess appoint Robert Bork to serve until JRB is confirmed.
Personally, I expect him to go with AGAG for his first pick, and then a new O'Connor with a second pick.
He's already proven with the booting of Rumsfeld that he has no inclination to pick fights with the Democrats. If he's willing to compromise this much on the war, then clearly there's nothing untouchable here.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
Judges are still a winning issue for Republicans - which is why it's still mystifying that they didn't run on the issue in 2008.
Most Democrats would not be able to survive the politics of vociferously opposing the nomination of either Miguel Estrada, R. Ted Cruz, or Janice Rogers Brown. For circuit court appointments they could get away with it. But not for the Supreme Court.
Conservatives and Democrats alike would oppose Gonzales. I think he knows this, which is why I don't think he really wants to be nominated anymore. It would turn into a grand inquisition of the entire Bush War on Terror agenda. He'd be in confirmation hearings for a solid month.
If conservatives had reacted to David Souter the way they reacted to Harriet Miers, I don't know that we wouldn't have Edith Jones on the supreme court today instead of Souter. Dubya may test this theory if he gets another selection, but I hope he doesn't and I don't expect him to.
he doesn't get another selection or that he doesn't test that theory?
Supreme Court nominees and UN Ambassador picks are a great way to make The Dems take a position on things. Getting the next Iraq supplemental to the Hill in rapid fashion would also put Chairman Rangel on the spot.
2006 is done, 2008 is another day and another fight