-Truman, btw, gave -us Harold Buron, Fren M. Vinson, Tom Clarke (Ramsey's -dad and as AG the the genius beyond the loyalty oath -requirement), and Sherman Minton -- losers all. ANd -not because he was handicapped by the Congress -- he -just liked these hacks.
Yeah, I skipped Truman since his SC picks were pretty much losers.
> Clinton could
> barely get anyone confirmed, so we got Breyer and
> Ginsburg.
-He barely tried.
Given that he had so much trouble getting even the moderately liberal people he tried to appoint, how could you tell. He never got past the blocks on the liberals to get to more radical folks.
> So more Dem Senators, more progressive Supreme
> Court. And vise versa.
-If the Dem Senators are progressive. Menwhile Ike gave -us Warren, Brennan, Potter Stewart, and Marshall -Harlan (who passed for a conservative in them days, -todayt he'd be well to the left to Breyer or -Ginsburg), as well as Charles Whitaker -- a mediocrity
Ike is hardly representative of modern GOPers; he came close to being recruited by the Dems.
Talking about party politics from the 50s is talking about another age, before the civil rights era drove out the Dixiecrats, the liberal Republicans were liquidated and social issues realigned issues between the parties.
> 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.
-Worth a try. We really need LBJ back, though. I mean -in the Senate. Even in a minority leadership position -he'd had the guts and brilliance and the malice to -punish malcontents so they wish they'd never been -born.
Maybe but it's a different era.
-Not a myth I purvey, Decentralization ought to make it -easier, not harder, to get rid of DINOS like -Lieberman.
Why? The decentralization is used by Senators to create their own operations which are independent of outside actors, especially in their own states where they build mini-machines.