Replies

The liberal project cannot easily tolerate the loss of John Paul Stevens' seat, or those of Ginsberg, Breyer or Souter. I expect that one of Reid's first moves as Majority Leader would be to make sure that the Judiciary Committee Democrats are absolutely committed to voting down any Bush appointee to one of the four liberal seats. They will see nothing but upside in keeping appointments alive as an electoral issue in 2008, and 30 years of downside in letting put on a movement conservative in his early 50s. The willingness of the Nelsons, Landrieu, Lieberman, and any of the (allegedly) socially moderate Class of 2006 Democrats who might get elected on Tuesday to confirm will become irrelevant, because none of them will be on Judiciary and no nominee reaches the floor without a majority on Judiciary.

I expect that one of Reid's first moves as Majority Leader would be to make sure that the Judiciary Committee Democrats are absolutely committed to voting down any Bush appointee to one of the four liberal seats.

Well, why not? It worked so well for them politically in 2000. And 2002. And 2004... /sarc

Seriously, you're right - they will try to stonewall any nomination, but not because they feel it is a political winner. They know full well that, as long as W sticks to his guns and does not flinch in nominating (and standing behind) a strict constructionist, it is a political loser for them.

However, the SC is their last toehold in keeping baby murder legal, so they will try everything - and I do mean everything - to forestall the inevitable.