ConfirmThem

For anyone thinking McCain is unacceptable, here's the alternative: http://www.slate.com/id/2183930/

"We'd want a (SCOTUS) nominee who would do what John Roberts did," one (Obama) staff member said. "You go through the process and say 'Hey, I'll look at each case as it comes.' You have a moderate temperament. You're affable and everybody likes you. And then you get up there, and after a year and a half, you vote on the opposite side from John Roberts in every single case where that's warranted and it matters."

STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SCALIA, J., joined.

Sorry, but that is ridiculously self-indulgent (though not as much as Limbaugh-Ingraham-etc.'s carping against McCain). 3 or 4 more Roberts and Alitos would cement SCOTUS for the foreseeable long-term future. Isn't that exactly what we've been striving for for the last 30 years??

That would be the greatest plaudit and legacy to Scalia and Thomas: to write or vote in majority opinions for the rest of their careers, and have those carried on afterward. Please, People: Keep your eye on the ball! C'mon! "Calm down!"

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/bushs_grand_slam...

"The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Patrick Leahy, Thursday called the White House's complaints unjustified. "The Senate has now confirmed 140 judges in almost three years it has been run by a Democratic majority," Leahy said today. "In more than four years of Republican control, the Senate confirmed just 158."

The committee has scheduled a nominations hearing for Feb. 21, its first hearing for an appeals court nominee since last September."

I have to say I am pleased we are getting 4 DJs and 1 CCA hearings this week. My bet is the Dems dump Honaker though on a party line vote. They cant be too generous. Bobo who do you think will be up next after Haynes.

was his saying it's up to judges to enforce the law. I thought the idea was:
- Leg Branch writes the laws
- Exec Branch enforces the laws
- Jud Branch interprets the laws
The problem we've had is when judges in effect write laws instead of interpret them vs the Constitution.

I think Pratter will be confirmed next, but I don't think that will happen until early May. That will leave about 2 1/2 months to fight over Keisler and the Fourth Circuit nominees. At best, I think only 1 or 2 of them will be confirmed.

I believe he said it's up to judges to inform the law, not enforce. If that's so, I think that would be closer to "interpret," though I might have misheard him. If he said enforce, he doesn't understand the difference between the executive function and the judicial function.

You may be right. It wasn't clear to me; I thought he said inform and wondered, "huh??"

Over at the Campaign Standard blog at the Weekly Standard, there are a couple posts about VP possibilities. New names they mention are former Rep/US Trade Rep/OMB Dir Rob Portman, Sen Jim DeMint, Sen Richard Burr, and Sen Brownback. I must say I like them all quite a bit. Portman (and Cox for that matter) would make the most sense since they have considerable business/economic experience, which would nicely complement McCain's national defense creds.

I also like Brownback a lot.

I really worry about Brownback as a VP nominee since he is not a charming and dynamic speaker. We need someone who can really "sell" the Republican agenda. Cox is such a person.

Will choosing a conservative running mate help McCain inspire the Republican base?

I hope so. Then again, if the possibility of 3+ SCOTUS vacancies over the next few years doesn't motivate us, I don't know what will.

= younger, conservative, Southern governor. Mark Sanford fits this bill; are there others?

It needs be someone who evangelicals and Economic Conservatives can rally around from a Southern State

A Govenor would not hurt either

I think Huckabee has a gotten a raw deal from the economic Conservatives, But the fact is they do not like him.

He may not be the best nominee unless he wins VA on Tuesday then McCain may take him to appease social Conservatives and Evangelicals like me.

Interesting observation on Honacker. He has been somewhat controversial, which is the reason he hasn't gotten a hearing until now despite being nominated nearly a year ago. Didn't some Dem Senator put a hold on him? So the Dem strategy would be: release the hold, give him a hearing, vote him down in Committee, waste some more time, and give a scalp to the left-wing loonies. What was his heinous offense, anyway? I think it had something to do with criticizing the radical homosexual agenda. Apparently this is now sufficient for disqualification, even in Wyoming.

Although you specifically asked BoBo, here's my take on who gets the next CCA hearing after Haynes: Pratter (that was pretty easy). But not until April at least, with confirmation 3-4 weeks later. Two or three more months down the drain.

One more observation. I thought Catherina Haynes looked rather fetching, one might say appealing, up there behind Bush at the ceremony yesterday. If she had been nominated by Bush's predecessor, she might well have been invited to a private follow-up meeting in the Oval Office.

Matthew Friendly, I also heard "inform" when listening to the speech, but the printed version released to the media has "enforce". So McCain just misspoke (or we misheard).

Regarding "enforce" vs. "interpret" vs. "inform", I would prefer "apply" to all of those.

Anyone have any thoughts about JC Watts for VP?

For VP, I think these folks make the most sense:

Romney
Cox
Sanford
Portman
Burr

Portman as has the benefit of coming from Ohio, which is always an important state (though with a lot of veterans, it may already be in the McCain column).

Romney would certainly be a good pick, agreed. And then in 2012, Romney can pick Sarah Palin as his Veep. It's all settled then.

I hate to advocate solely on the basis of "diversity", but I worry about our ability to overcome what will inevitably be breathless hype about the historic nature of a Clinton or Obama (or Clinton and Obama) candidacy. It seems to me that McCain would want to do something to at least mitigate the force of this excitement by putting a historic "first" on his ticket as well.

J.C. Watts has always been rock solid on the issues. And Sarah Palin, whom Andrew has mentioned before, sounds great and would certainly fit well with McCain's "reformist" themes. (E.g., she killed the Bridge to Nowhere.) These two would seem to further the "diversity" goal without requiring any compromise on ideology. Bobby Jindal is another option in this vein, although he may be too young.

I don't think a diversity pick would help at all. Voters who are interested in putting the first woman or African-American in the White House aren't going to care that McCain has a minority at the bottom of his ticket. It would actually generate negative attention, as that kind of move would reek of tokenism, regardless of the person's merits.

His best bet is to pick someone who has both name recognition and solid, conservative credentials. But I fear the maverick senator will again go his own way: expect a McCain/Giuliani or McCain/Lieberman ticket.

Well, the following LA Times story has Lieberman disclaiming any interest in a VP nomination. Of course, these things are always open to negotiation . . .

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-ticket3feb03,0,2480...

I've heard him say the same thing: no chance to VP.

I think Palin and Jindal are future superstars for the GOP and conservatives, but they may be a bit too inexperienced and/or young at this time.

If we have to go female, perhaps Hutchinson from Texas. Watts would have my wholehearted support as well.

I'm still sticking to my list above....

He may be the best choice, since he could bridge the gap between social and economic Conservatives

Romney is not a possibility he has major problems in the South
this was obvious last week

Also anyone Pat Toomey(Club for Growth) recommends is the kiss of death. Club for Growth led the Hatchet job on Huckabee.

I also like Gov Perdue in Georgia

Thanks for your imput. I did not mean to exclude anyone else's thoughts on the matter. The reason I asked Bobo was because he intially mentioned about the Haynes hearing. You do great work with your monthly updates and our a great asset to this site. Have a great weekend.

but I take it Sarah Palin is a U.S. Rep.? Sorry, Andrew, but would you please re-post about her? Thanks.

Governor of Alaska. See http://palinforvp.blogspot.com/

Do we really want to see Dan Quayle v. Bentsen over again?

Are you suggesting Hillary or Obama have the type of experience Bentsen had, and would be able to use it against Palin? Neither has much experience, which is what makes this election laughable. If not for an unpopular war and incumbent president, the Republicans would destroy the Dems in this election.

Hillary or Obama "has" the type of experience....

Yes for Hillary. She has effectively been President for 8 years.

McCain's advantage over Obama (and perhaps his only advantage) is that he can claim to have experience with military and foreign affairs and can project more than an empty image of 'hope'. A Palin VP selection destroys that argument.

The Vice President is someone who might have to run the country in an instant in a time of crisis, especially given McCain's age. The last person who should be in that position is an amateur.

It's not as much about how much experience a guy literally has but rather how the country feels about a person's experience.

We know the media is going to give Obama a pass on these issues....a soccer mom from outside the Continental US probably doesn't...