Because, this is nothing more and nothingless than good cop/bad cop. We're all getting screwed...but to us, it feels better when the pubs do it.
As long as the economy stays the same or grows moderately, we all feel something is really happening, while all the time, our rights are being eroded by those in power, be it pub or dem.
We drilling in anwar yet?
Smoke and mirrors.
FMCDH(BITS)
I've looked this up before, and today's composition of the court is unusually weighted toward the professional judge.
I want to say that there have traditionally been 5 career paths to the Supreme Court, all roughly equally used until recently, and I *think* they are:
1. Politics
2. Executive Branch
3. Private attorney (maybe includes law professor)
4. Federal court
5. State court
This was most recent position before confirmation, and many in one path had experience in another.
I'll have to sit down and actually do it again, but a cursory view of the CJ's is:
Executive branch: 4 (Marshall, Taney, Chase, Vinson)
Politics: 3 (Ellsworth, White, Warren)
Fed judge: 3 (Stone, Burger, Rehnquist)
Attorney: 1 (Jay)
State judge: 0
couldn't figure out: 5 (Rutledge, Fuller, Waite, Taft, Hughes)
Possibly all the ones in the last category were private attorneys.
Hughes: associate justice, 1910-16, presidential candidate, 1916, ? 1916-30.
Taft: US President, 1909-13, ? 1913-21
Nowadays it is difficult to appoint a sitting senator; it would require special legislation to lower the pay.
However the Fred Thompson idea is a good one.
I'm standing by my preference for Brown and Luttig to replace O'Connor and Rehnquist, and the order isn't important. Either one would be stupendous as Chief Justice, or as Associate.
Ciao for now!....and greetings to The Lady Mary!
Char :)