-Been a while since them guys were appointed. ANd no -Democratic Pres is likely to nominate their -equivalents today -
It really depends on the votes in the Senate-- FDR and LBJ had large super-majorities in the Senate and we got decent nominees. Clinton could barely get anyone confirmed, so we got Breyer and Ginsburg.
So more Dem Senators, more progressive Supreme Court. And vise versa.
>What great
> weapons does the Dem leadership have against
> Senators Pryor, Nelson or
> Lieberman?
-Nathan, you're almost even to make me switch back to -no-lesser-evilism. How about: deny them the Party's -endorsement?
That's decided under state primary rules, not the Democratic Leadership in DC. No power over it.
>Throw them out of the Party? (Labour did
>it with Galloway.)
Ah, thanks for pointing out why these discussions or insane. We don't have a parliamentary system; independent primaries control who is in the party and who is not.
The leadership can take away their seniority on committees, but again without control of the Senate, that doesn't amount to much of a threat.
>Cut off their PAC money?
Not controlled by the party leadership. Much more the other way around, unfortunately.
>Find
>candidadtes who support Dem principles tro endorse,
>fund, and run agaianst them?
The most attractive option and one that should be used more often. But hard to do in states where the incumbent Senator usually has more weapons to threaten challengers than the national leadership has to recruit them.
The myth here is that the Dem leadership controls all these things. The power over "the party" is defused over a whole range of freelance fundraisers, unions, direct mail specialists, consultants and grassroots activists.
-- Nathan Newman