Potential SCOTUS Retirements

I don't intend to cover the Supreme Court in too much detail on this blog, because it's generally beyond the scope of "politics." There is an undeniable element of politics involved, however, simply by virtue of Supreme Court justices being selected and confirmed by the more political branches of government.

Since it's June, the speculation of which justices may be ready to announce their retirement is back. It is severely muted from a year ago, however, since the retirement of Justice O'Connor and the death of Chief Justice Rehnquist during the past year have changed the Court and removed the two most likely retirees.

That doesn't mean a retirement is inconceivable. Justice Stevens has been serving on the Court since 1975, and was named to the Court by Gerald Ford, a Republican. There are reports that his wife is ill and would like him to retire, and he is 86 years old. It is possible that, even though he has become known as the most liberal Justice on the bench since the retirement of liberal stalwarts William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall, he might be interested in allowing a Republican to replace him since that's the party that appointed him in the first place.

There have also been regular whispers for the past several years about Justice Ginsburg, who has battled cancer and is 73 years old. Unlike Stevens, she was named by a Democrat (Bill Clinton), and doesn't appear to have any family pressures upon her to retire. The rumors are more focused on her personal health than on anything else.

I will make the entirely safe prediction that no justice will retire this year. First, it would be a horrible time to do so, with the 2006 election just around the corner. It is highly unlikely that the two parties could cooperate enough to confirm a nominee in time for the next term, and probably not until sometime in January of 2007. That's a long time for the Court to be without a member (although not unprecedented), and it militates towards trying to hold on at least another year.

Further, I discount the talk of Stevens wanting a Republican to name his replacement. It is entirely inconsistent with his views, and the Republican party today is a much less moderate party than the one that bred Gerald Ford. It seems to me that Stevens would like to hold out until June 2009, hoping that a Democrat wins in 2008. Also, unless Ginsburg is actually suffering from an illness now (and there is no indication that this is the case), I don't see how her being a cancer survivor is relevant.

Frankly, the discussion of these justices (not coincidentally the two most liberal justices on the bench) considering retirement now smacks to me of wishful thinking on the part of Conservatives, who after having removed Sandra Day O'Connor can taste the defeat of Roe v. Wade. Expect no retirements this year, or next year, or the year after. If the justices can stay healthy, this is the Court we will have until we elect a new President.

Pelosi in Trouble?

Robert Novak suggests today that if the Democrats don't take back the House this year, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi will not retain her position. He further suggests that Dem #2 Steny Hoyer, the seemingly logical choice to become the new Leader, would face a serious challenge from former Clinton staffer Rahm Emmanuel, the current chairman of the DCCC, in the event of a palace coup that ousted Pelosi.

A couple of thoughts on this. First, I've always wondered how Pelosi rose to the position of the Dem leader. She is not that engaging on television, and she is most definitely from the far left of the party. She is the polar opposite of Dick Gephardt, a more moderate Midwesterner who ran the Dems for years before "giving up" his position to concentrate on a Presidential run in 2004. To make matters worse, the Democrats haven't exactly done well under Pelosi, failing to capitalize on a political climate that seems perfectly suited for them.

Rahm Emmanuel is the kind of politician that seems more suited to a leadership position. He is a new face, which makes his potential rise to the primary Minority leadership post in the House so quickly somewhat unexpected, but he has seemingly been effective raising money through the DCCC. There is, however, one major problem with the idea that Emmanuel would be in a position to replace Pelosi following a Dem loss in November.

The DCCC is the body that recruits candidates to run for Congressional seats, and funnels money to the appropriate places. There is a lot of political strategy involved in the decision-making done by the DCCC. While Pelosi would look bad following a loss because she's not an appealing public face for the party, Emmanuel would actually be tainted with the stain of helping to lose an election that should have been a slam dunk. It is hard for me to see why the party would reward Emmanuel for not accomplishing the goal of winning back the House.

As a result, my early guess is that Pelosi would be sacked from the leadership, Emmanuel would be shifted to another position less involved with elections to lick his wounds, and Steny Hoyer or a stealth candidate would emerge as the new Dem leader.

More on Tuesday

The Wall Street Journal has an interesting article about the importance of Tuesday's primaries and the California Special Election to replace Duke Cunningham.

I included the Special Election in my rundown of the primaries of interest that I posted yesterday, but thought I should comment briefly on it here, since it is fairly interesting. As the WSJ article says, California CD 50 should be a safe Republican seat, but the scandal of Cunningham being ousted has resulted in a close race. If the Democrats take this seat, it will be strongly indicative that the Republicans have a LOT of work to do over the next 5 months to make sure that they don't have a disastrous showing in November.

For the record, I don't yet buy that the political climate is so great for Democrats that the Republicans should be in panic mode. IF this election goes to the Dems, I'll have to conclude that the stage is set for a Democratic takeover of the house, but I expect that the Republicans will retain the seat. The problem, as has been said by too many people to count, is that the Democrats aren't much more appealing to the electorate than the Republicans. I expect the Democrats to do well in November, and to take a number of seats. I do not, however, expect them to take enough to win back the House.

Tuesday's Primaries - Non-Senate Version

I discussed the Senate races that are affected by next Tuesday's primaries in a previous post. This post is geared toward the other races of interest that will be set next week. As before, the incumbent is listed first. I'm only posting races where multiple people are running for one of the positions. All of this information can be found here.


Alabama Governor
Bob Riley (R) faces a challenge from Roy Moore, the ten commandments judge
Bob Siegelman (D), who formerly held the position of governor in Alabama, faces 6 opponents

California Governor
Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) faces 3 challengers
Philip Angelides (D), who has been endorsed by his party, faces 7 challengers

Iowa Governor (OPEN)
Chet Culver (D) faces 3 opponents
Jim Nussle (R), currently an Iowa congressman, is running unopposed

New Mexico Governor
Bill Richardson (D) is running unopposed
J.R. Damron (R) is running unopposed

South Dakota Governor
Mike Rounds (R) is running unopposed
Jack Billion (D) faces Dennis Wiese (D)

Alabama CD 2
Terry Everett (R) is running unopposed
John Morykwas, Jr. (D) faces Charles James (D)

California CD 2
Walter Herger, Jr. (R), first elected in 1986, is running unopposed
William Falzett, Jr. (D) faces Arjinderpal Sekhon (D)

California CD 4
John Doolittle (R), first elected in 1990, faces John Holmes (R)
Charles Brown (D) faces two opponents

California CD 6
Lynn Woolsey (D), first elected in 1992, faces Joseph Nation (D)
Mike Halliwell (R) faces Todd Hooper (R)

California CD 8
Nancy Pelosi (D), first elected in 1987 in a special election, is unopposed
Michael Denunzio (R) faces Eve Castello (R)

California CD 11
Richard Pombo (R), first elected in 1992, faces 2 opponents
Steve Filson (D) faces Jerry McNerney (D) and Steve Thomas (D)

California CD 12
Tom Lantos (D), first elected in 1980, faces 2 opponents
Mike Garza (R) faces Chris Huskins (R) and Michael Moloney (R)

California CD 22 - OPEN SEAT
Steve Nichols (R) faces Kevin McCarthy (R) and David Evans (R)
Sharon Beery (D) is running unopposed

California CD 23
Lois Capps (D), first elected in 1998, is running unopposed
Will Levison (R) faces Victor Tognazzini

California CD 24
Elton Gallegly (R), first elected in 1986, faces Michael Tenenbaum (R)
Jill Martinez (D) is running unopposed

California CD 26
David Dreier (R), first elected in 1980, faces Mel Milton (R) and Sonny Sardo (R)
Russ Warner (D) faces Cynthia Matthews and Hoyt Hilsman

California CD 28
Howard Berman (D), first elected in 1982, faces Charles Coleman, Jr. (D)
Stanely Kesselman (R) is running unopposed

California CD 29
Adam Schiff (D), first elected in 2000, faces Bob McCloskey (R)
Bill Bodell (R) is running unopposed

California CD 31
Xavier Becerra (D), first elected in 1992, faces Sal Genovese (D)
No Republican is running in this race

California CD 33
Diane Watson (D), first elected in a special election in 2001, faces Mervin Evans (D)
No Republican is running in this race

California CD 35
Maxine Waters (D), first elected in 1990, faces Carl McGill (D)
No Republican is running in this race

California CD 36
Jane Harman (D), first elected in 2000, faces Marcy Winograd (D)
Brian Gibson (R) is running unopposed

California CD 37
Juanita Millender-McDonald (D), first elected in 1996, faces Peter Mathews (D)
No Republican is running in this race

California CD 39
Linda Sanchez (D), first elected in 2002, faces Frank Amador (D) and Ken Graham (D)
James Andion (R) is running unopposed

California CD 40
Ed Royce (R), first elected in 1992, is running unopposed
Florice Hoffman (D) faces Christina Avalos (D)

California CD 45
Mary Bono (R), first elected in 1998, is running unopposed
David Roth (D) faces Marty Schwimmer

California CD 47
Loretta Sanchez (D), first elected in 1996, is running unopposed
Tan Dguyen (R) faces Rosie Avila (R) and Angelita Campos (R)

California CD 50* (Open Seat - Special Election)
Brian Bilbray (R) v. Francine Busby (D)

California CD 50* (Open Seat - Primary Election)
Brian Bilbray (R) faces 13 challengers in the concurrent primary
Francine Busby (D) faces Chris Young (D)

California CD 51
Bob Filner (D), first elected in 1992, faces Juan Vargas (D) and Danny Ramirez (D)
Jim Galley (R) faces Blake Miles (R)

California CD 52
Duncan Hunter (R), first elected in 1980, is running unopposed
Five Democrats are running for the chance to face Hunter in November

California CD 53
Susan Davis (D), first elected in 2000, is running unopposed
Bryan Barton (R) faces Woody Woodrum (R)

Iowa CD 1 (OPEN)
Bill Dix (R) faces Michael Whalen (R) and Brian Kennedy (R)
Bruce Braley (D) faces 3 opponents

Iowa CD 5
Steve King (R), first elected in 2002, is running unopposed
Robert Chambers (D) faces E. Joyce Schulte (D)

Mississippi CD 1
Roger Wicker (R), first elected in 1994, is running unopposed
Four Democrats are fighting for the chance to face Wicker

Mississippi CD 2
Bennie Thompson (D), first elected in a special election in 1993, faces 2 opponents
Von Brown (R) is running unopposed

Montana CD 1
Denny Rehberg (R), first elected in 2000, is running unopposed
Monica Lindeen (D) faces Eric Jon Gunderson (D)

New Jersey CD 2
Frank LoBiondo (R), first elected in 1992, is running unopposed
Viola Thomas-Hughes (D) faces Henry David Marcus (D)

New Jersey CD 5
Scott Garrett (R), first elected in 2002, faces Michael Cino (R)
Paul Aronsohn (D) faces Camille Abate (D)

New Jersey CD 13* (Open Seat - Special Primary)
Albio Sires (D) faces James Geron (D)
The winner will serve from Nov. 7, 2006 until Jan. 3, 2007

New Jersey CD 13* (OPEN)
Albio Sires (D) faces Joe Vas (D)
John Guarini (R) is running unopposed


I don't expect many fireworks here. The Governor battles will be the most interesting, although I don't expect any surprise defeats for incumbents. It will be interesting to see how much support Roy Moore gets in Alabama, and to how much Schwarzenegger struggles in California, but this should all be pro forma, with incumbents emerging unscathed.

William Jefferson brouhaha

I don't have a lot to say on this subject, but I wanted to post something today and this seemed an appropriate topic on which I could make a few brief points. For those of you unfamiliar with William Jefferson, you need to read the news more frequently. You can find out a little about him here.

Of course, the big story about this is not that there is a corrupt politician running around Washington, D.C. Most of us assume that there are more like Jefferson than are unlike him, and you need only look back to Duke Cunningham for another recent example of corruption. I also am not that interested in what this does to the Democratic strategy of trying to paint the Republicans as the "Party of Corruption." That's a non-starter, just because no one was willing to see the Democrats as the "Party of Virtue" in the first place, so this really isn't going to change the equation much on that score.

Instead, I find interesting the reaction of the House leadership, especially Speaker Dennis Hastert, to the search of Jefferson's office by the FBI. All sorts of claims have been made by the Legislative branch regarding this issue, including that there is some kind of special immunity from these kinds of searches, and also that such a search is a violation of separation of powers. The interesting thing is that the Republicans know this is a losing issue. The public is going to side with the FBI in a case where you are dealing with a crooked congressman, and the thought of Hastert and other House leaders joining together with the Dems on this issue is going to leave a very sour taste in the mouth of most members of the mainstream. After all, there is no constituency for this issue. Civil Libertarians don't really care about the supposed "privileges" of Congressmen...they are worried about ordinary citizens. Law and order types are predisposed towards favoring this kind of search. So, it appears as terribly naive for Hastert and others to assert that the FBI is in the wrong here, unless of course they are standing on principle, and to hell with the consequences.

Thing is, I can't see that happening. Most politicians, Hastert and Co. included, care much more about being re-elected than about standing on principle. Look at the posturing that goes on. And so, I expect that this issue is going to slip quietly into the night. There are now stories that Bush's order to sequester the records that were seized from Jefferson's office for 45 days was designed to provide Hastert some cover, and I expect exactly that to happen. This issue is going to fade away, the House will roll over and let it be, and Jefferson will soon be an ex-Congressman, probably wearing an orange jumpsuit.

Unity 08

There's an interesting movement afoot amongst a few moderate- and independent-minded politicos (most of whom haven't been all that influential for many, many years). The movement is called Unity 08, and their goals are pretty interesting. Basically, they are individuals who feel that the two major parties have moved away from chasing after voters in the middle, and instead are pandering far too much to their respective bases. As a result, they want to jolt the parties into being more responsive to the majority of the electorate. Their main purpose is to field a joint Dem-Rep (or vice-versa) ticket for the Presidency and Vice-Presidency in 2008, and to have that ticket receive at least 20% of the vote.

I'm very interested in this movement, and for a wide variety of reasons. If you've read the original posts to this blog, from back in 2004, you know that I am not a fan of the electoral college, and desperately want a tie so that the election goes to the House of Representatives, since I believe that such a result would provide the impetus necessary for the electoral college to be removed through a constitutional amendment. However, a tie is not the only way to achieve this result. If a strong third party were able to attract enough electoral votes to prevent any candidate from receiving a majority of the electoral votes, the top two finishers would meet in the House election. This is my main reason for supporting the Unity movement; I would love to see a third candidate win electoral votes and cause some chaos in the system.

Of course, this isn't an easy thing to do. Ross Perot won 19% of the popular vote in 1992, and won nary an electoral vote. The reason was quite simple; he had pretty much constant support throughout the United States. Without even a surge of regional appeal, he couldn't get a majority in any state, and so failed to make a dent in the electoral college. For the Unity movement to bring about the effects I want, they would have to win at least a few states.

But exactly how many states would they have to win to cause some chaos? The magic number in electoral college math is 270. In 2004, George Bush received 286 electoral votes. Removing 17 votes from his tally would bring about the result desired. Possible? Certainly. First off, if a large state like Ohio or Florida were to go for the third candidate, it would send the election to the House. But a more interesting question is what would happen if a moderate candidate with significant appeal were to run? Or, better yet, what if a particular such moderate were to run? Of course I'm talking about John McCain. And things could get very, very interesting if he were to headline the Unity ticket.

To begin, you can probably chock up Arizona in his column from the start, and that already gets you 10 of the 17 necessary votes. The easiest way to take 7 more away from Bush would be to get Nevada and New Mexico as well, and of course those states barely went for Bush in '04, and are in the geographic sway of Arizona. Is this far-fetched? Maybe, maybe not.

Regardless of whether McCain ends up as the Unity candidate, I'm fascinated by what could come from this movement and will be following it's activities over the next 3 years with a great deal of fascination.

Tuesday's Senate Primaries

There are a number of Senate primaries next Tuesday, which will officially give a number of incumbents opponents for November's election. Most of them aren't that exciting, and I don't have that much to say about them for now. For your edification, here they are, with the incumbent listed first:

California
Dianne Feinstein (D) faces two underwhelming challengers
Dick Mountjoy (R) is without a major challenger for the nomination

Mississippi
Trent Lott (R) is unopposed
Four Democrats, none of whom I know anything about, are fighting it out

Montana
Conrad Burns (R) faces three opponents, but should be re-nominated
John Morrison (D), state Auditor, faces four opponents for the nomination

New Jersey
Robert Menendez (D) faces off against one little known opponent
Thomas Kean, Jr. (R) also has one challenger for the nomination

New Mexico
Jeff Bingaman (D) is unopposed
Allen McCulloch (R) has two opponents

Incidentally, the Democratic party in Indiana will be selecting an opponent for Richard Lugar on Saturday. Or at least, they are supposed to; of course, there is no chance that Lugar will lose this race, so it really is an exercise in futility.

If there is anything interesting to discuss with these races over the next week, I will mention it. I don't expect it to happen, however, so expect the next discussion of these races to be on Tuesday night or Wednesday next after the returns are in and the races are set.

Reviving the Blog

I've decided that I like this blog title, and so I am reviving it. The blog will continue to focus solely on politics, this time as we approach the 2006 midterm election. There will, of course, be references to the 2008 Presidential election, as appropriate.