Three cheers!!! Get ready to rumble.....

NOT that we all aren't thrilled with two new Supreme Court Justices, but that was January and this is April......and now there are several seats on the Court of Appeals and the District Courts that need filling. This has been a two part problem.....

Part one -- no doubt that the Senate has had a tight schedule, but the issues that have come before the Senate do not seem to be working out so well. So we are thrilled to see this item in the Congress Daily AM yesterday:

"Senate Majority Leader Frist wants to bring two controversial judicial nominees to the Senate floor in May -- a strategic move that GOP strategists and aides say would help energize the Republican base and fundraising efforts heading into the November elections. A Frist aide said Tuesday the majority leader is considering scheduling votes next month on President Bush's long-stalled nominations of U.S. District Judge Terrence Boyle to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and White House aide Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Democrats adamantly oppose both nominees, along with nearly a dozen other Bush nominations. Partisan tension over Bush's judicial picks peaked last May when Frist threatened the so-called nuclear option -- a change in parliamentary procedures to stop minority filibusters of judicial nominees. A group of 14 senators -- seven Republicans and seven Democrats -- formed a pivotal coalition that persuaded both sides to avoid a showdown. The group said senators should not filibuster a president's nominee except under "extraordinary circumstances," which cleared the way for the Senate to approve several nominees.

The battle riled up voters in both parties last year -- and Frist apparently is aiming for similar results. "Frist's successful fight on circuit judges last year energized the base and contributed to small donor giving for Senate Republicans," said one GOP leadership aide today. "Future fights on pending circuit court nominees over the next few months will show voters the difference between Senate Republicans and the obstructionist Senate Democrats." Democrats, for their part, are prepared to engage their GOP counterparts. "These are two controversial nominees that can expect strong opposition from the Democratic Caucus,"Minority Leader Reid 's spokesman said today. Democrats plan to frame Frist's tactic as catering to the conservative GOP base in hope of bolstering a potential presidential bid in 2008. "It can be viewed as part of the Bill Frist presidential campaign of throwing a little red meat to the base," said Reid's spokesman. He added that Democrats could also benefit from another fight this year. "I think it's probably equal," he said, referring to how the issue could energize Democratic voters.

Whether Boyle and Kavanaugh can get a floor vote next month remains up in the air. Senate Judiciary Democrats last month wrote Judiciary Chairman Specter requesting another hearing on Kavanaugh's nomination before the committee votes, pointing to recent revelations that Bush authorized warrantless wiretaps. Kavanaugh at the time worked in the White House Counsel's office. Democrats also have argued that Kavanaugh -- a former assistant to independent counsel Kenneth Starr -- is a partisan loyalist who lacks judicial experience. Bush first nominated Kavanaugh in July 2003, but his nomination languished in the 108th Congress. The president renominated Kavanaugh in January. Boyle's nomination languished before the Senate Judiciary Committee for nearly four years before the panel last June sent the nomination to the floor. All eight Judiciary Democrats voted against his nomination, citing his record on civil rights."


And Part Two -- there seems to be a bit of a hold up at the White House in getting nominees up to the Hill. Again, understandably, things have been a bit on the busy side, but let's be honest here, it is time to play to our strengths and there can be no doubt that judicial nominations have been one of the more successful efforts of the Administration. That is, before the slow down in getting nominations to the Hill.

There seems to be talk around town and now in the New York Times that things might still be a changin' at the White House....the "shakeup" may be continuing.....even in the White House Counsel's office??? Inquiring minds most certainly DO want to know.

A major change in that office could signal a serious return to making sure that one of the most important duties of the President, the nomination of federal judicial nominees, returns to highest priority status. After all, the clock is ticking....