The Sister who mysteriously fell of the Face of the Blog for weeks at a time

Not as clever as Talia's title, perhaps, but nonetheless descriptive.

Oh, family, family, darling, darling, much-missed family! To be perfectly fair this post should be an in-depth description of the craziness that is my summer, but I just wrote a long summary of all that for my friends, and those of you who really care have probablyu discovered it in person or through the Momophone.
So instead I will be true to family tradition and talk politics. I happen to have a great chance to do that, since I am surrounded in the Kollel by leftists, which I suppose is status quo for Boston, although the director is more libertarian/ conservative. But anyway, most of the boys are the real deal, Bush-bashing, universal health care pushing, you name it. One is a self descriped Marxist and says that the Vietname War was wrong not for the traditional reasons, but because Communism is good and it would have been great if they would have come to America. I kid you not, nor do I Exaggerate. But he is a bit nutty and atypical, to be fair.
A couple of days ago we went to a rally about Darfur as a group. I really think the cause is an important one, but I could not stop cracking up. Rabble rousing in general amuses me, but alos becuase it was so anti-Bush. All the speakers yelled at him for not doing enoug, although no one suggested yelling at the UN. One of the best gimmicks was sending him a giant watch, because his must be broken, because he said that he would not allow genocide on his watch. Get it? I don't. The pun is so poor that it almost makes you think that they're stupid enough have gotten the meanings mixed up. But it did get a big round of applause.

I should write more, but I'm too tired.

Love and miss you all.

Do not challenge me

for my prescience is unparalleled. As evidence I give you my posts here and here with my predictions. Notice both are dated prior to the events I accurately predicted.

Roberts is old news

The question is, who's next.

According to news accounts, Bush interviewed five candidates over the weekend. Roberts, Wilkinson, Luttig, Edith Clement, and Edith Jones. Three premier jurists, two women, and no hispanics. Roberts got the nod, of course. Are the other four in the running for the next retirement? Bush may feel that he can only afford one white male, and Luttig and Wilkinson missed their best shot. On the other hand, I was pleasantly surprised that Bush ignored PC orthodoxy with this pick and may do so again. In any case Luttig and Wilkinson probably head the white male non-Senator category for the future. If Bush was sincerely interviewing Clement and Jones then they correspondingly probably head the female category. It is possible that Bush had already decided to name one of the men and had the Ediths along for show. If so, they may not actually head the female category.

The third category is hispanic and the question is what happened to Garza? If Garza's confirmation is at issue , it would be because he has explicitly criticized Roe in a concurrence applying Roe. Edith Jones has done the same, however and was still a finalist. I suspect that Bush wants to appoint Gonzalez to the Court, but will do so only when one of the liberal justices retires and if Rhenquist is replaced by someone the "base" trusts. If Rhenquist and Stevens go together, I think Bush will go with Gonzalez as CJ and Edith Jones as AJ. If Rhenquist goes next alone, I think it's Roberts as CJ and one of the Ediths as AJ. If Stevens goes first Bush will go Gonzo unless he thinks the "base" will feel betrayed, in which case he chooses Edith Clement.

Is Janice Rodgers Brown a liberal judge?

Todd Zwycki comments on a study of decisions by six judges who are considered Supreme Court possibilities. The ranking from the study is not what I would have expected with Janice Rodgers Brown the least conservative and Wilkinson the most.

Judge	Composite Ideology
Janice Rodgers Brown (SCOCA)	59.9
Frank Easterbrook	68.8
Emilio Garza	70.4
Edith Jones	71.3
J. Michael Luttig	68.2
J. Harvie Wilkinson	79.5
U.S. Court of Appeals Average	64.4

There are three components: criminal justice, civil rights and liberties, and economic and labor regulation. It may be that Janice Rodgers Brown's score reflects different sorts of cases heard in California's Supreme Court or perhaps just different law being applied.

Toilet Training for Normal People

When toilet training a young boy it is best to dress him in shirts perhaps a little short.

Should Bush appoint a politician or a judge?

Recently Senators Reid, Spector, and Schumer have been suggesting that Bush look outside the judiciary for a Supreme Court nominee. This recalls Clinton's desire to appoint a "big-hearted" politician such as Babbit, Cuomo, or Mitchell to the Court. Clinton backed down because of the likely opposition such politicians would have faced compared to judges like Ginsburg or Breyer. The reason, though, that he initially wanted such nominees was that he believed they would be more likely to implement "big-hearted" policies (i.e. act as super-legislators rather than judges). I suspect that is one reason these Senators want Bush to look outside the judiciary for nominees.

The other obvious reason is that they are Senators and like the idea of once again making the Senate a major souce of Supreme Court nominees. I think this reason is somewhat misguided. A major reason Presidents liked to apponit Senators to the Court, as well as the cabinet, was Senatorial courtesy. Nominees that would otherwise be considered unacceptable would be confirmed. FDR's appointment of Hugo Black is an example. FDR did not believe he could get through as liberal a nominee as Black (today Black would be labeled a right-wing extremist) without the benefit of Senatorial courtesy. The Democrats in the Senate, however, do not seem inclined to allow all Senators through, even the most qualified such as Cornyn. Presidents therefore have a reduced desire to appoint from the Senate.

Supreme Court Reform

If the GOP really cared about reducing judicial activism they have a wonderful opportunity right now to introduce amendments that would serve this purpose. The Democrats may be more amenable because of Bush's potential to change the direction of the court. My own pet idea is to introduce 9 year terms so that there is one appointment a year. The justices would still have life tenure as appelate court judges. I believe that such a court would act less like a super legislature and defer more to Congress. Further, I suspect that such a Court would look more to the actual constitution when striking down legislation.

In Your Face, Mike

Drudge says Rhenquist is going today. Mike called into question the accuracy of my earlier post linking to a predicition that Rhenquist would resign this week.

Well ha, ha, ha.

BTW, the earlier post had only said O'Connor would be gone by Labor Day. She's gone before Labor Day, so I guess I'm batting 1.000.

This, young Michael, is how you write a gloat post.

Supreme Court gossip

Eric at Red State reports that business interests are opposed to Luttig because he is too much of a Scalia clone and would support regulatory agencies against business interests. I wonder, though, is there anybody on the court today that doesn't normally support regulatory agencies against business interests?

My prediction

I predict Bush will nominate John Roberts