Wednesday
July 13 2005
THE SCOTUS NAME GAME: So Reid and Leahy got
their chance to "consult" with the President yesterday
about his impending Court pick - though they came away from the
meeting disappointed Bush wouldn't name names.
That didn't
prevent the Dems from floating a bunch of names on their own.
The AP
reported that Leahy went the Hispanic route, pushing U.S.
Appellate Judges Sonia Sotomayor (2nd Circuit) and Ed Prado (5th
Circuit) in the meeting yesterday. Somewhere along the line Texas
District Court Judge Ricardo Hinojosa's name got added to the
list.
Harry Reid
reinforced the Dem-media line that what the Court really needs
is a politician rather than a judge by suggesting
Senator Judd Gregg as a possible "consensus" nominee.
And Barbara
Boxer chimed in - rather comically if you ask me - by recommending
two Republican-appointed California Supreme Court Justices who
are 65 and 69 years old, respectively.
The name
of the game for Democrats (if you'll forgive the pun) in this
pre-nomination period is twofold: first, to position themselves
for all out war in the event Bush nominates a true conservative:
"We gave President Bush a long list of consensus nominees
who we could support but he chose to ignore a bipartisan approach
and appease the religious right by appointing a radical."
The second
goal of Democrats is to try and corral Bush into appointing Alberto
Gonzales. Let's face it: given the current choices on Bush's
shortlist, Dems would be thrilled
to get Gonzales. They've been holding back cries of glee over
the last two weeks watching conservatives do their work for them
by getting in Bush's face and publicly threatening him over a
Gonzales nomination, thereby increasing its likelihood.
Finally,
don't discount what Laura
Bush said yesterday about wanting the President to appoint
a woman to fill O'Connor's seat. Edith Jones, Edith Brown Clement,
or Priscilla Owen would put Democrats in a tight spot, and a Janice
Rogers Brown nomination would be their worst nightmare come true.
EXECUTIVE
QUESTIONS: What do you do if you're a governor who can't
get a controversial bill through the state legislature controlled
by your own party? If you're Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich
there's no problem: just issue
an executive order:
Gov.
Rod Blagojevich on Tuesday authorized millions of state dollars
for embryonic stem cell research, one of America's most divisive
scientific issues...
Blagojevich's
executive order authorizes $10 million in state grants for research
on stem cells, including those harvested from human embryos....
Though
Illinois' government is controlled by Democrats and its political
climate is moderate to liberal, the stem cell issue hasn't been
without rancor. Blagojevich's executive order comes after failed
attempts to get legislation passed earlier this year that would
have set up a specific revenue source for stem cell research."
What if you're
a pro-choice governor who doesn't like decade-old anti-abortion
restrictions attached to state health funds? If you're Pennsylvania
Governor Ed Rendell there's a three word answer: line
item veto.
Yesterday
Rendell "blue lined" the following language from the
budget that has been attached to state health money since 1996:
"These funds shall not be used to promote, perform or refer
for abortions or engage in abortion counseling."
The Pittsburgh
Post-Gazette reports that Rendell justified the move by saying
that "putting such limits on the use of Medicaid funds
likely violates the state Constitution and federal law and besides,
he considered it "just plain bad policy." Rendell
is entitled to his opinion as to the merits of the policy, but
I've always thought it was up to the courts to decide what is
and is not Constitutional.
MAKE
LOVE, NOT WAR: We all had a good chuckle at Dennis Kucinich's
expense back in December 2003 when his quixotic presidential campaign
launched the silly "Win
a Date With Dennis" contest. It turns out Dennis
finally found true love. - T. Bevan 10:05 am Link
| Email | Send
To A Friend | Printer
Friendly
