Yes, Sol, I think Ted Olsen is a more likely Bush nominee than Ashcroft is, because I think even some Republicans would balk at Ashcroft.

Guest, as to Dems approving Scalia, there's kind of a tradition -- though not a Constitutional requirement -- for the Senate to do more "consenting" than "advising" in judicial nominee votes. They seem to think it's not cricket for them to OPENLY oppose a nominee on ideological grounds or apply a "litmus test." Instead, they try to find some non-judicial skeleton in the nominee's closet -- e.g., smoking pot, sexual harrassment, past membership in the KKK, etc. The "ideology thing" (litmus test) probably gets used a lot by the Judicial Committee -- which is why so many Clinton nominees never even got brought up for a vote. But once the nomination is placed before the Senate, the opposing Senators dance delicately around the legal track record issues and usually vote for confirmation. I think they especially do this when they know the appointment will pass anyway, and they don't want to be on record as an obstructionist. (Who wants a SCOTUS justice pissed at you, anyway?)


Unfortunately, I heard on This Week or Meet The Press this morning what I was afraid of. It seems Bush CAN appoint even a SCOTUS justice without needing Senate "consent" if he makes the appointment while the Senate is in recess -- or maybe just if it's between the last session of one Senate and the first session of the new Senate.

Genie