The Gang of 14 is the crucial test in the upcoming Senate hearings on the USSC vacancy (or vacancies).

If the 7 Democrats decide that a particular nominee is "extraordinary" and therefore support a filibuster, will the 7 Republicans have the stones to end the Senate's filibuster powers for judicial nominees?

That, I think, is the key question. There is little question that all of Bush's nominees would win a simple up-or-down vote. But will they be allowed to hold such a vote?

Interesting times ahead...

Somehow, I still have the feeling that G.W. Bush is going to make a thoughtful decision that won't be as devisive as everyone expects. Depending on who he nominates to replace Justice O'Connor, I may even support Justice Scalia succeeding Justice Rehnquist. I just can't see this President creating a firestorm on this one unless, of course, he needs to divert attention away from Iraq, from the economy and Karl Rove.

Damn, on second thought, we're screwed.

The economy is booming, SK...

Tell that to the citizens of Buffalo, RJ.

Lowest unemployment rate in 4 years. Strong GDP growth. Declining budget deficit, despite no tax increases and the additional costs of the War On Terror.

Our economy is booming, particularly when compared to, say, Germany or France... ;-)

I'm sorry RJ but you are dreaming. To name just one factor look at the number of people who dropped off the dole line, and therefore are no longer counted as unemployed.

Look at health insusrance where people who have health insurance can't afford the prescriptions and some of the treatments.

I'm more than thrilled your doing great but you can't project that on the country as a whole.

And back on topic - have we even confirmed that Rehnquist has tendered his resignation?

I say they all retire and be replaced with TV judges.

Schiendlin.
Brown.
Lane.
Mathis.
Wapner.

...Reinhold?

"I'm sorry RJ but you are dreaming."

Name one of the FACTS I pointed out that was from a "dream sequence" ...

My eyes tend to glaze over when we economics but it seems to me that when my Joint Economic Committee of the Senate emails come in, they keep reporting an increase in nonfarm jobs. That tells me that it's booming and not obscuring the permanently unemployed. But then my eyes still glaze over at economics.

Talk to me in dollar$ and sen$e. What percentage of job growth translated into personal economic growth? How many Americans who are in the lower middle class have had to take a cut in pay and/or health benefits in the last two years? For every job that is being filled does it replace a lost job at the same pay scale? How many new employees did WalMart hire? There's a high paying company - for Taiwanese factory workers.

It seems to me that the dramatic increase in federal spending due to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have had to had a direct negative impact on this economy. Numbers can be manipulated to suit the needs of anyone who interprets them. This economy may seem to be rebounding on the surface but it is fragile at best. The threat of continuing rising energy costs combined with extended defense appropriations threaten the outlook for year's end. The number of people who stopped looking for work in June were NOT counted as unemployed and that figure rose to 240,000. And, finally, manufacturing jobs remain weak as the dollar struggles to maintain strength in the global market. We may have dipped to the lowest unemployment rate since 9/11 but we're growing at half the pace we grew in the 90's.

But, economic debate is boring unless the unemployment rate rises so high that people start paying attention. We don't have that 'plan for a rainy day' mentality. We want the quick fix, the instant gratification and to hell with outlooks for where we'll be a year or two from now. Americans have a terrible record of being proactive as opposed to reactive.