Should the dems frame this as taking the heat off of Rove?

[ncteechur]

The repubs will say that we are holding up the nomination process and not allowing Bush to fill court vacancies, BUT as far as I know there

(1) is no time limit for filling a SC vacancy.

(2) nothing mandated in the Constitution referring to nine justices.

The dems can argue that there is no Constitutional crisis in filling the vacancy because there technically is no vacancy. The court can function with eight justices and has done so before. The dems could argue that the timing of the annoucement was purely political to deflect attention from Rove and the criminal investigation and that Bush has not done what he said and consulted democrats AND republicans.

[Goldmund]

1. If the Dems really took that stand,

that alone would take the heat off Rove.

[ncteechur]

3. Then we confirm Clement easily as one DU polls asks?

I don't know--I'm asking? It seems to me that the WH's credibility is low and ripe for for lack of a better word, exploitation.

If the dems filibuster a bad nominee, then we will allow the repubs to frame the issue as reneging on the group of 14 agreement.

[Goldmund]

6. I dunno, we should see whom he nominates

But if it's somebody no worse than O'Connor, then definitely -- confirm her and the story's over.

[LSparkle]

2. Can't we walk and chew gum at the same time?

Also, isn't the Senate the only body that will have to be involved with the confirmation process? House members can still keep the heat on Rove.

[shugh514]

4. Sandra Day O'Connor

has also said she will remain on the bench until a replacement has been confirmed.

"This is to inform you of my decision to retire from my position as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, effective upon the nomination and confirmation of my successor"

[ncteechur]

5. So there is no hurry. Rove is crafty and if we play this wrong we

give them both issues. Although I know the Rovegate is ultimately in the hands of Fitzgerald. They will play one story against the other.

[wli]

7. saying he's trying to pack the bench for trials would do better

i.e. he's trying to influence the court's decision by planting supporters.

[mmonk]

8. Yes

because it's obvious.

[Jack Rabbit]

9. Actually, no

For one thing, Bush has a Court vacancy to fill. The timing has to do with Justice O'Connor's retirement, not Karl Rove's legal problems. That they came at the same time is hardly a matter of design.

While the Constitution does not fix the number of justices on the Supreme Court (and it has varied), an act of Congress passed about 1867 fixed the number at nine. It was ten, but fixing it at nine was a way for a hostile Congress to prevent President Andrew Johnson from filling a vacancy. Consequently . . .

The dems can argue that there is no Constitutional crisis in filling the vacancy because there technically is no vacancy. The court can function with eight justices and has done so before.

. . . that dog won't hunt.

[Lecky]

10. No

I really don't think we should, I see that backfiring and making us look like the bad guys instead of Rove. Also there is always that possibility that no indictments will be made and we have no idea when Fitzgerald is going to wrap this up.

The Rove story is not going to dissapear I promise. Not to mention that most people can see what's going on here (distraction).