He Knows How To Pick 'em: Among the various political subplots in Washington today, one of the lesser known (but still quite emotional in its own sphere) is the fight over judicial appointments. The battle has been going on especially sharply since the Clinton Administration, and the Democrats in the Senate aren't quite ready to leave it in the hands of the Republicans quite yet. All the same, nearly everyone is still confirmed with only a handful of the most egregious (or easily targeted) blocked. One was Judge Charles Pickering, the reasons touched upon here (with some background) (I discuss the recess appointment in particular here). He also was among the two (over 100 were confirmed) rejected by the Democratic Senate as a whole (2002), that is, the short time when we had that sort of thing under President Bush. This is the one the President decides to install via a recess appointment, good to Jan. 2005. His political connections, including to Sen. Lott, might have something to do with it.

Molly Ivins (with an assist from Lou DuBose) in Bushwhacked: Life in George W. Bush's America (a follow-up to Shrub: The Short but Happy Political Life of George W. Bush, which helped me reject the guy before Nov. 2000) helps put this in context by discussing the other nominee rejected by the whole Senate (the two rejected plus all of the thirty odd others rejected in committee were re-nominated right away, leading even some conservatives to raise an eyebrow), Justice Priscilla Owen. The book also provides an overview of the various other ways the President and his administration are a threat to the common man. These two have clear progressive biases, but being long time Texas sorts, they know their man.

Anyway, the recess appointment of Judge Pickering to the appellate bench doesn't take him off the hook; it just allows him to be an acting judge for a year. It also is probably a symbolic gesture of sorts, but one that also just aggravates the situation, especially since the failure smarts as well. Part of the reason for these battles is because certain appellate circuits are narrowly divided and lower court judges have large discretion when so few cases reach the Supreme Court. Thus, conservative judges in the lower courts have great power. One area where this is the case is in death penalty cases such as these (foreign consulate involvement) .

Politics: Though I don't know just how important overall Iowa (where Pat Robertson did very well in 1988) will be, the race is getting close there. John Kerry in particular is showing some life. John Edwards as well, perhaps because he visited all 99 counties. The caucus is sort of a beauty contest in which showing up is more than half the battle. Wes Clark skipped Iowa to focus on New Hampshire, but I discuss the Clark v. Dean decision, including Clark's problems in the domestic arena, here.