ConfirmThem

Yeah, where is Insider when you need him?

is my prediction for the next nominee.

go back to the original list.

Quin, I always knew you were Insider....

but Justice Souter seems more the type to drop a letter in the mail than resign from the bench.

But either way, I'll take it!

Once the resignation comes in, the President sits down with Senators Cornyn, DeMint, Coburn, etc., and lays down the quid pro quo. Resurrect the twice defeated "comprehensive" immigration shamnesty (something the Presidente actually cares about), and I'll give you a nomination like Judge Edith Jones. Continue to stymie my immigration plans, and I give you...Connie Callahan.
______________________________________
"Our job is to bash the president"
Newsweek's Evan Thomas, on the role of the MSM

i want easterbrook!

______________________________________
"Our job is to bash the president"
Newsweek's Evan Thomas, on the role of the MSM

By the "original list", I take it you mean the ones who were interviewed by Bush for O'Connor's seat in July '05: Roberts, Alito, Clement, Luttig, and Wilkinson. Please correct me if I'm mistaken.

If so, this list is now severely depleted and needs to be expanded. Of the three who are left, Wilkinson is too old and Luttig is too controversial and almost surely unconfirmable. That leaves only Clement, who is somewhat of an enigma to me. I'm not necessarily opposed to her. Presumably she's fine if Cheney and others approved her for the final five. But I need to know much more about her before signing a blank check.

One thing nags me: why did the majority Democrats let her through unanimously in 2001 when they were stymying nearly all other CCA nominees except Democrats Gregory and Parker? This still bothers me. What did they know, if anything? Or is she just very well connected?

We need more than one viable name for the list. I would add Williams, Sykes, McConnell and Estrada, and take Luttig and Wilkinson off.

Here's hoping that Souter spends this summer enjoying his newfound retirement under the maple trees on his New Hampshire farm, while Leahy spends it reading Hearing briefing books under his famous apple tree on his farm in neighboring Vermont.

Edith Brown Clement is not a blank slate. That may have been true when her name first surfaced a few years back, but she has authored some excellent opinions and been on the right side of some controversial cases. She is rock solid in my estimation.

Also, I don't put much stock in the fact that "Cheney and others approved her for the final five." I do find significant that Robert Bork endorsed her as one of a handful of Courts of Appeals judges he thought were preferable. That and her actual opinions have sold me on her. I don't care about her age: women live forever anyway....

I think Corrigan would also be excellent, but it is alleged she was offered one of the previous openings (or inquiries were made) and she made it clear she wasn't interested. She is an avowed and practicing textualist-originalist, and it would be great to have such a female justice on the Court.

And I'll be a happy man for many years.

___________________________________
The CIA has better politicians than it has spies - Fred Thompson

If I had to put money on it, I would say Sykes, Clement, Cantero, Mahoney, and JRB are probably the top five on this administration's list. Easterbrook and/or someone like Gorsuch or Colloton might be on as very capable white guys picks. I'd also love to see someone like Robert Young of the Michigan Supreme Court on the list.

would be over SG Paul Clement. Check out his resume and the article in the SCOTUS prospects section. His resume is pure gold, he has over 40 arguments before the high court and he is respected on both sides of the aisle. Sen. Feingold spoke glowingly in this favor at his SG hearing. He's a bit young at only 41, but it would be hard to make much of his age given his prodigious record of accomplishment and excellence. Given the absence of opposition to his elevation to SG (remember, Ted Olson was barely confirmed to the same position), the dems would be hard pressed to find a way to oppose him, particularly with a filibuster, that didn't play out in a way that hurt them politically. Come on Mr. President! Cement your legacy until the time of your children's children! Paul Clement for SCOTUS!

I would agree that Clement is not a blank slate. Her judicial experience is about the same length as Alito's, although much of it was on the District Court. Everything I've read about or by her has been positive and indicates that she is conservative and a proponent of judicial restraint. Basically, I'd just like to see more specific analyses and detailed information about her. If there is a vacancy, this need will presumably be met in the next few weeks.

As to her being on the original list of five vetted by Cheney and other Administration officials, I think that may well be a very substantial recommendation given the identity of the other four: Roberts, Alito, Wilkinson and Luttig. That's pretty fancy company.

That Bork endorsed her in such positive terms is of course very important. I've already learned several useful things about Clement this morning, and look forward to learning more.

Clement is indeed outstanding, and you make good arguments in favor of such a nomination. I fear he and other excellent white males will be passed over in favor of political correctness. Here's hoping Bush does the right thing if he gets the opportunity....

Just a quick question. There was a test vote for this bill and over 60 senatros voted for it. What kind of vote is that where 60 votes brings it back up for debate. If it failed a cloture vote a few weeks back, doesn't that keep the "debate" (as with the "filibustered" judicial nominees) going?

retires, then POTUS should not shy from appointing an articulate originalist/textualist, regardless of race or gender. At worst, Democrats will balk and the seat goes unfilled going into the 2008 election. My guess is that a vacant seat left on the table would do more to energize the right than the left. And, in any case, the momentum would be against the Democrats, assuming a Stevens or Souter retirement. In the meantime, the liberal block loses a seat until someone is appointed -- by a recess appointment (this, of course, may assume too much with the use of contingent retirements in vogue since Earl Warren).

As the clock was ticking on the Reagan Presidency, he went with the 'consensus' candidate rather than a 3rd attempt at a real conservative.

The original list is dead now. As we approach 2008, we might as well toss it out the window.

Given her comments in the LA Times article last week, does this affect her status in your mind? Can you imagine the Senate Dems in the GOP grilling her now?

"The Roberts court is even better for business" than the court led for two decades by the late Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, said Washington attorney Maureen E. Mahoney, who is a longtime friend of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and a former clerk for Rehnquist. "There is unquestionably a greater number of business cases before the court, and [the justices] are quite willing to limit damage remedies."
~~~
That rule [mfrs setting a minimum retail price] is being challenged this year by a Los Angeles maker of women's handbags. Mahoney predicted the court is likely to strike down the long-standing rule.

"This court subscribes to the Chicago school of law and economics," she said, referring to the free-market theories associated with the University of Chicago that cast a skeptical eye on nearly all regulation of business.

The Senate has not really passed anything this entire Congress other than the war funding bill. It's essentially shut down, regardless of whether that's Lott's intent or not.

I'm not going to drag myself into the retirement mess again. Stupidly, I was sucked in by the well orchestrated musings of Insider last year. That worked out well, didn't it? The term will end with a 5-4 ruling against the Louisville and Seattle school districts. There will be no bench retirement announcement, nor will there be a letter delivered to el Presidente. The door for Republican SCOTUS appointments has closed.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/06/26/national/w154433...

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/SENATOR_VS_JUDGE?SITE=AP&SECTION=...

I just read that AP article too. Dick Durbin is calling on Brett Kavanaugh to recuse himself from any future detainee cases because he supposedly told White House lawyers in 2002 that Anthony Kennedy, for whom he had formerly clerked, would never accept any government policy that didn't allow American combatants a lawywer. Kavanaugh released a statement through his court that he would not follow Durbin's request. I wonder how the Dems will use this new issue to obstruct Keisler, also a government lawyer and former Kennedy clerk (albeit in the Justice Department and not the White House).

HE is the first person I thought of when I read that story. Obviously they can't impeach Kavanaugh, so they will take it out on Keisler. I am to the point where if we can't get Keisler in the next few months, then the Senate just needs to be shut down. What are we conservatives getting out of the Senate even operating if we are not getting judges?

http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2007/06/meet-the-robert.html

"Chief Justice John Roberts is a strong conservative leader with firm convictions as to the proper role of the courts and the proper outcome of cases and a willingness to move the Court aggressively towards those goals. His closest ally is his former Reagan administration colleague and fellow new Justice Sam Alito, who he favors with the assignments in the bulk of the 5-4 cases where the Chief cannot or prefers not to take the opinion himself. The two are quite comfortable interpreting precedents narrowly or creating broad exceptions to them, but prefer not to overrule precedents outright."

"Substantively, the Reagan Justice Department is firmly in control. As the documents and the news analyses that got so much attention during the Roberts and Alito confirmation hearings reminded us, the conservative legal leadership that came of age in the early 1980s took its inspiration from the conviction that the Warren and (to a lesser extent) Burger Courts consistently overreached, staking out a role for the courts that is fundamentally inconsistent with a properly functioning republican government."

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=a8MaW0PF9zK4

"In what may have been the most pro- business U.S. Supreme Court term in decades, standing out as companies' No. 1 ally was no small feat. Justice Samuel Alito managed it in his first full year.

As the court term comes to a close this week, Alito has emerged as the justice friendliest to the interests of corporations. He sided with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the nation's largest business lobby, in 13 of 14 cases this term, more often than any of his colleagues. He cast votes to limit punitive damages, ease regulation and restrict suits by investors, consumers and alleged victims of job bias."

I think it can only be Keisler, if it is going to happen at all. There isn't enough time for a hearing.

I know its just a parroting of Jan Crawford Greenberg, but I'd really expect to see the Janice Rogers Brown nomination.

And if that dies, a follow up with Diane Sykes or some such person.

Romney or Fred.

As I must endlessly repeat, among JRB's many advantages are that she has never worked for a RPOTUS Admin (normally this would be not necessarily good, but in her case we have a lil' bit more evidence of her judicial philosophy and commitment to it than with some other potential nominees... ;) ), and has no connections whatsoever I'm aware of with any past or present member of the current Admin.

PSST! Souter to retire, pass it on!

JRB, Estrada, Batchelder, Easterbrook, P. Clement, and many others mentioned in this thread and for the past year or two.

why do you say "the original list is dead"? I find that a curious statement to say the least.

clearly Luttig is unconfirmable in a Democrat Senate. Wilkinson may be, and has the added disadvantages of being white, male, and over 60 (though that latter may be advantageous in getting confirmed). but Joy Clement? still very much alive, IMO, provided the "self-promoting" rap is either a) as I suspect, something of a gossipy game of telephone with little, or vastly over-hyped, substance to it, or b) not major enough to be a non-starter.

1. Miguel Estrada
2. Janice Rogers Brown
3. Allison Eid
4. Margaret Ryan

:-)

My prediction is: Souter and Stevens will retire on Thursday, and Bush will nominate Owen and Cantero. :-)

Or maybe Eid and Estrada.

Or maybe he'll nominate Roberts for two more seats, so Roberts will have three votes total.

Will all due respect, while I do like her resume, it's not enough to warrant a SCOTUS selection over SO MANY other more qualified people. A few months on the military Court of Appeals is simply not enough.

Look at his predictions, especially the "3 votes for Roberts" scenario. Look at the confidence in which he forecasts retirements, not at all burdened by facts or logic. Can there be any doubt - Andrew, you are Insider!

No, I wasn't Insider, but I'd sure like to know who was! Andrew

I think Bush will want to have a shot at confirming the nominee. And he won't want to give any of the RINOs an easy way out.

Edith Clement will bring Landrieu on board and put some pressure on Pryor to follow suit. Ben Nelson will also vote accordingly. The RINOs will fall in line. That's at least 51 votes. I don't believe the Dems will be able to filibuster with the national attention.

Paul Clement will make it at least a bit hard for both Wisconsin Senators to vote against him.

JRB on the other hand invites a fight where RINOs likely will scurry. If time is short and GWB will only have one shot before the Dems wait for 2009, why would he take risks with the chance to add a fifth solid conservative vote to SCOTUS?

If I were Bush I'd go with Edith Clement and leave the Democrats in the position of trying to rough up a nice Southern lady whom they helped confirm unanimously to the Fifth Circuit.

The Dems will do everything in their power - including a filibuster as a majority if needed - to block him from filling a seat.

Then the best thing would be to just leave the seat open for Fred or Mitt, rather than nominating from Chuck's list.

IMO.

I don't see her losing any Republican. 49
Landrieu is a virtual lock. 50
So too the 4 Dems that voted for Alito (Nelson, Byrd, Johnson, Conrad). 54
Other red-state senators up for reelection (Pryor, Baucus, Rockefeller). 57
Freshman Dems (Casey, Webb, Tester). 60

granted, some of those are iffy (Conrad, Rockefeller, Webb/Tester being the iffiest from their respective groups, IMO), but I can't see her losing more than 3 or 4 of them, and there are enough others that should potentially be gettable to offset them. I think they'd have a hard enough time demonizing her that it might not even be as close as Alito.

Either way works out well for us - either someone like Clement gets on the court, or this becomes a HUGE, potent, political sledgehammer we use against the Dems. It was a great issue in 2004 down South, and an SC nomination would be far more visible than any previous obstruction. So if we get the opportunity, let's confidently bring it on!

It doesn't really matter if the "self promoting" rap is fabricated or not. Clement is dead simply because the President doesn't like her, by many accounts.

I disagree. Those "accounts" have always been mere speculation, probably put out by people who don't like her.

Suppose there is a vacancy. Isn't it nice to know that Alberto Gonzales won't be in the mix? At least we have that going for us. Although, el Presidente is prone to idiotic mistakes and nominating Gonzales might just fit the mold. Oh well, back to reality. Tomorrow will come and go with the Supreme Court's composition remaining he same. Unless Fred! can catch on fire throughout the hinter land, Hillary or Obama will choose the next two or three justices. Way to go Mr. President, way to go.

If Kerry had been elected in 2004, his opportunity to replace the Chief and O'Conner would have solidified a liberal Court for a generation. The appointments of Roberts and Alito were more about maintaining the status quo, rather than changing the direction of the Court. With the next President likely to nominate replacements for one or both of Stevens and Ginsberg (aged 87 and 74, respectively), the democrats need to win the White House in '08 to hold serve, and I suspect they will. It's hard to get ahead and stay ahead given political realities. That truth seems unfortunate when you are in power, but is certainly a comfort when you are out of power.

Even if the very worst happens in 08 (Obama & 54 Dem senators), wouldn't Sotomayor for Stevens or RBG be a slight upgrade? :D

No way in the world Koh or someone of that ilk could get thru, IMO.

And I still think there could be lots of long donk faces from 09-12, waiting for the JPS announcement that won't come. The man really couldn't be more clear that he will retire when his health declines (remember the rumor that he has people 'monitoring' his opinions for slippage?) and not one second earlier.

I still think there's a very outside 2% shot Souter could figure what's the use, and call it a day tomorrow. But watch, it'll be Nino who's finally had enough, w/JGR/Sam/AMK's refusal to overturn Flast & McCain-Feingold the final straw... :P

Back in the exciting days of Roberts, Alito, and the Insider-inspired speculation that followed, we ran a little poll on Confirmthem. The idea was to vote "support" or "not support" for each person on a list of names. A lot of you participated. Whether the person was "confirmable" was not a factor. Just for fun, here's what the list looked like, after tallying the votes of about three dozen Confirmthem commenters:

1 Easterbrook: 100.0%
2 Sykes: 93.8%
3 Luttig: 93.5%
4 Pryor: 89.3%
5 P.Clement: 87.5%
6 Brown: 84.4%
7 Williams: 84.4%
8 Jones: 83.9%
9 Cox 83.3%
10 Garza: 82.8%
11 Estrada: 78.1%
12 Batchelder: 73.1%
13 Owen: 71.4%
14 McConnell: 71.0%
15 Corrigan 70.8%
16 Cantero: 62.1%
17 E.Clement: 60.7%
18 Wilkinson: 55.6%
19 Boggs: 32.0%
20 Konzinski 25.9%
21 Glendon: 22.2%
22 Mahoney: 16.1%
23 Gonzales: 10.3%
24 Raggi: 4.5%
25 Callahan: 3.2%

Souter should retire. We should get another Roberts/Alito confirmed, and then the county in which he has his lake home should take Souter's land from him to put up a private Bong shop.

I like Edith Clement too and think, with the time constraints, she's risen to the top of the list of confirmable judges (Sykes falling from the confirmable ranks due to time contraints).

But zendari is right, she doesn't have support from within the White House. Remember back in 2005 the White House was scrambling around looking so hard for a potential pick with a vagina that they nominated Harriet Miers. This was only a few months after Clement was on the Top 5 list.

Obviously something happened to put her completely out of favor or she would have been the no-brainer selection for that slot. Maybe it's President Bush not liking her, or maybe it's because the conservative movement got some heartburn when misreporting gave her 4 hours as the nominee in the Roberts slot. Hopefully time has healed her reputation there as it has around here, but you never know. That White House has established its own reality.

The WH had to make the case there were no other women. Batchelder also got kicked around. But that's old news. Clement makes it hard for the Dems to deny a floor vote. And Joy Clement wins a floor vote.

My first choice would be Diane Sykes, and being the case, I'd like to ask Thomas Alan to elaborate a little more on why he thinks time constraints rule her out.

Easterbrook would of course be really great, as would Steve Calabresi, but as a matter of raw politics, as obnoxious as this may be, you'd have to have a triple retirement for Bush to nominate a third white male to the court.

~Simon

"Our Constitution was not written in the sands to be washed away by each wave of new judges blown in by each successive political wind." - Turner v. United States, 396 U.S. 398, 426 (1970) (Black, dissenting)

But only one district court nominee for a ND Texas seat that doesn't come open until November.

Somehow, that wouldn't be my priority at this point.

George H.W. Bush wanted to put Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court instead of David Souter, but Thomas was shot down because he'd only been on the DC Circuit a few months.

It's something to remember when considering former Luttig/Thomas clerk Margaret Ryan. Her biography (marine) and gender would make for an incredibly compelling nominee to serve as a steller supreme court justice for decades to come. And no longer could Linda Greenhouse dwell on how the only woman on the Supreme Court - representing all women, of course - ruled on the other side of a case having anything to do with a woman or women's issues.

Wasn't Souter on the 1 CCA for only a few months before he was nominated to SCOTUS? Interesting to see who the Pres. would have picked if Thomas had been first.

Clement makes it hard for the Dems to deny a floor vote.

Did you also think Clarence Thomas would be immune from getting treated like a piece of trash?

How 'bout Lyndsey Gramnesty for SCOTUS (not)!

You're so right. The Democrats have shown during the last few years that they will jettison any tradition and flaunt any rules that stand in the way of attaining their objectives. Fiibustering the Circuit nominees and breaking a 200 year practice is an obvious case in point. These tactics remind me of those of the Leninists and Communists: any means justify the ends.

The stakes will be so high, the Senate Dems (prodded on by Neas and the Leftist groups) will almost certainly try to filibuster any conservative Bush SCOTUS nominee. I was amazed that Ed Whelan and some other commentators were so naive in recent statements saying that Democrats would respect tradition and refrain from filibusters. It almost seems that they don't understand that the Dem. opponents they're dealing with operate like gangsters.

From our point of view, it will (would) be essential to nominate a consevative who is extremely hard to demonize. Take it to the bank, the Dem-Libs will do their utmost to tar and demonize her.

Re: SimonDodd1

Democrats have the wind at their backs and a weak president in front of them. They want to obsruct at the moment and are willing to do all they can to just declare the Senate closed for business (as seen with the Circuit Court nonsense). They think they can do that and still win the presidency next year (I remain hopeful as long as we don't nominate Sen. Thompson...but that's another story).

President Bush has, at best, two shots of getting a nominee through before the 2008 nonimation spree. If they defeat Sykes, they know they only need defeat one more person to move the whole thing to the next president. At which point even a Clement is DOA and no one better than Mahoney gets through.

The Dems control the Senate, so while they may move heaven and earth to be obstructionist, I can't see them filibustering anyone for the simple reason that they would look ridiculous. The filibuster is a rule to protect the minority, a Dem majority using that tactic would make them look more ineffective then they already are. After all, how many bills has the Dem controlled Congress passed so far that have become law???

They might try to filibuster. But I see little evidence that they succeed in doing so.

They could shut down Congress, but I don't think that would fly. The 10% moonbat base would be furious over a 3rd successful nomination, but most of the other 40% of the nation that votes Dem won't really care that much.

The Democrats don't care about looking ridiculous; such appearances are frivolous to them. They care about results. Get it? By this point, I sincerely hope so.

Believe me they they will try to filibuster. If the nominee is a conservative and isn't clean as a whistle, they will smear her and probably succeed. Let's get real here.

I can't see them filibustering anyone for the simple reason that they would look ridiculous.

Are you freakin' kidding me? Sen. Schumer and Sen. Kennedy lead the Democrats on this issue. Y'know what? Those two are completely result-oriented politicians. They don't care about comity. They don't care about political triangulation. They don't care about whether us yokels at Confirmthem.com think they look ridiculous. They care whether the Supreme Court will continue being a non-democratic force for moving the country to the left.

Jeez, this is why the GOP loses all the time.

A majority filibustering would be ridiculous, but Reid and Leahy would say it's Bush's fault for nominating yet another hard-line right-wing extremist instead of a moderate like Sotomayor. They are such a caricature that looking ridicuous is accepted as normal for them and ceases to be ridiculous.

Tom - I understand all that, but what you haven't explained is why Sykes is any more problematic under those circumstances than any other nominee. I think we have to assume that they're going to try and delay and tear to ribbons any nominee, so why not start with the best and work from there?

Of course, Sykes may not want the nomination (or more to the point may not want it now for the reasons you identify), but I don't think she's going to face significantly more opposition than any other viable nominee. As you point out, there's no reason to believe that Schumer, Durbin et al won't try to run out the clock of the Bush administration on any vacancy whoever the nominee is.

~Simon

that it amazes me he's majority leader. On the other hand, he could well be Schumer et al's witting puppet

I have it on good word that Scalia is retiring. You heard it here first. I KNOW.

If McConnell fails to display any backbone concerning Southwick or Keisler BEFORE the August recess, it will be useless for Bush to attempt to nominate any real conservative for another SCOTUS opening. The Dems will not follow tradition and will do everything possible, including filibustering, to make sure no identifiable conservative is confirmed.

Unfortunately, the only way around this problem, if Bush really wants to fill the position, is to nominate either a stealth candidate like Maureen Mahoney or someone perceived as a moderate like Connie Callahan or Sonia Sotomayor. If Southwick and Keisler are put aside by McConnell, Bush will only nominate the likes of JRB or Sykes IF he wants the nomination to be blocked so that the Republicans can use it as a campaign issue in 2008. It will be a tactical decision. Do I want to fill the position and change the direction of the court oh so slightly to the right? Or, do I not want to fill the position and instead allow the Republicans to use the issue of Dem obstructionism in the next presidential election?
I can't see conservatives getting to have their cake and eat it too under the present scenario.

fast200 go crawl back into your hole! Scalia is not going to retire. Like Stevens and Ginsburg, he too is a partisan warrior. Now that the conservatives are in charge of the Supreme Court, he will not want to leave BEFORE he has a real chance to influence the direction of the court. He knows perfectly well that with a Dem-controlled Senate his replacement will by necessity be less conservative than he is. Remember, he lived through the Bork fiasco, he knows how the Dems will treat another originalist if Bush nominates one.

Here we go. I have INSIDE information that ... craziness and deception are starting to run rampant around here.

Seriously, we must guard against fatuous optimism. Any worthwhile conservative SCOTUS or CCA confirmation from here on out is going to be a drawn-out battle to the bitter (hopefully sweet) end.

BTW, Scalia has already hired a full slate of clerks for the 2007 term and 3 out of 4 clerks for the 2008 term. He ain't going anywhere - nada, no way, end of discussion.

States like South Dakota have passed bills to completely ban all abortions in order to challenge Roe V. Wade. Instead, why don't states like this pass a law banning all abortions after the first 8 weeks or pregnancy? I would like to see how far Kennedy will go in allowing states to regulate abortion.

Simon:

Sykes is seen as one of ours. I'd say the same thing about pretty much anyone else we could talk about...Williams, Cantero, Batchelder, Corrigan (nevermind the A-Team).

Clement has a little better shot because she got press as a "moderate" a couple years back. In a strange way this makes her a more viable candidate than anyone else who is acceptable to us at first blush. Democrats aren't likely to give her a pass, but I'd put her chances of confirmation above 50%.

If Justice Stevens retires shortly after President Romney is elected, then it will be Sykes' turn.

A lot depends on how much taxpayer money the state wants to spend in extensive litigation over any new anti-abortion law.

(BTW, the South Dakota law was rescinded when it failed to win approval in a statewide referendum. I doubt other states are going to want to pass such broad laws after such a fiasco.)

I think he's probably just kidding....

The SD was defeated by the voters due to the lack of a rape/incest exception. If SD was willing to fight then, they could pass the bill I proposed and fight now.

I didnt know you knew Scalia personally. You seem to know an awful lot about what he feels. He's leaving. Please put this educated guess on your calendar.

Bobo IS Scalia!

I'm Clarence Thomas.

Romney or Fred.

Oz, I know you are not Clarence Thomas, because I am Clarence Thomas!

Quin Hillyer

You caught me. I'm actually Michael J. Luttig and I'm pulling in way more bling than either of you guys. :-)

Romney or Fred.

I agree, the Democrats will try to filibuster. But I think they'll have the same result as last time. 2/3 of the Democratic caucus might be nuts, but the remainder is occasionally sane.

Lieberman, Nelson, and a few others aren't quite in bed with PFAW.

Schumer does not have the seniority to be an official member of leadership, but let's not kid ourselves.

He is the most intelligent member of Congress.

As low an opinion as I have for the Senate, I doubt that very much. Sen. Schumer is just a true believer willing ot push his agenda which makes him effective in the same way Sen. Kennedy is.

But the guy can't scrape together a coherent argument to save his life.

He might be a partisan hack with an agenda, but if nothing else, he is 10 times more articulate than Leahy, Reid, and the rest of the Dem caucus.

Reminds me of this bit, which, on its face, is reasonably clever:

It's as if I asked you: What kind of movies do you like? Tell me two or three good movies. And you say, "I like movies with good acting. I like movies with good directing. I like movies with good cinematography."

And I ask you, "No, give me an example of a good movie." You don't name one. I say, "Give me an example of a bad movie." You won't name one. Then I ask you if you like "Casablanca," and you respond by saying, "Lots of people like 'Casablanca.'"