The Democratic and Republican Shortlist

When the new president gets elected, they're probably going to be nominating a candidate or two for the Supreme Court. A few months ago, SCOTUSblog posted a "Short List" of possible appointees by Democratic president (with a follow up post) along with list for a Republican president.

The President and the Courts

How do presidents try to influence the courts? Obviously, Supreme Court nominations are a key method. See the story behind Justice O'Connor. How would the Democratic presidential candidates pick a justice?

Once justices are in place, the executive tries to sway the courts through legal arguments. Note the role of the Solicitor General.

The judicial branch, of course, restrains and influences the executive branch. The Bush administration recently lost a round on fuel economy standards but won a round on national security wiretapping. Can we generalize from these cases? In comparison with domestic issues, have courts been more reluctant to stay the executive's hand in matters of national security?

Primary vs. General Election

The Iowa and New Hampshire primaries demonstrate an interesting conflict in primary politics, according to a recent New York Times article (view the article here). The article mentions that voters in these two states are ranking the candidates based on two criteria. The candidates either appeal to the ideological views of the base constituency or they will prove to be electable on the national stage. This issue is extremely important for Republican voters who lack a clear cut front runner who is both electable and in line with the party's ideological views. I thought this was an interesting article as it relates to the strategies for primary politics mentioned in Halperin.

Congress NAILs the President

NAIL is a mnemonic device for four ways by which the legislative branch oversees or checks the executive.

• Nominations. The Senate must confirm presidential nominations to high-level executive posts. Most nominations are uncontroversial and win easy approval. But the threat of defeating nominees may influence the names that the president sends to the Hill. And confirmation hearings not only enable senators to judge the nominees' qualifications but let them send messages to the administration. See Leahy ask Mukasey about torture.
• Appropriations. Lawmakers may use earmarks and limitations are to direct and restrict the availability of funds for specified activities. Look here for a map of some earmarks. As with nominations, they may also use hearings to raise policy questions. See Obey ask Secretary Gates about Gitmo.
• Investigations. Congressional committees often conduct investigations and oversight hearings. One famous example was the Senate Watergate Committee, in which then-staffer Fred Thompson played a role. Congress may also study executive branch operations through the GAO, the CBO, and the CRS.
• Legislation. Of course, Congress may influence the executive by passing laws requiring or forbidding certain activities. As the readings point out, the Supreme Court ruled against the "legislative veto."

Congress seldom resorts to a more powerful weapon: impeachment. See the cases of Johnson, Nixon, and Clinton.

In curbing the executive, how successful has Congress been? Under which circumstances does which branch have the upper hand?

Romney: Consultant-in-Chief

In last weekend's Wall Street Journal, there was an article describing how Romney's consulting background would shape a Romney presidency (link to the article)

An interesting excerpt from the article:

When asked for details about how he would reduce the size of government if elected, he mentions two things: The organizational chart of the executive branch, and consultants. "There's no corporation in America that would have a CEO, no COO, just a CEO, with 30 direct reports."

Running a government organized like this is, he explains, impossible. "So I would probably have super-cabinet secretaries, or at least some structure that McKinsey would guide me to put in place." He seems to catch a note of surprise in his audience, but he presses on: "I'm not kidding, I probably would bring in McKinsey. . . . I would consult with the best and the brightest minds, whether it's McKinsey, Bain, BCG or Jack Welch."

Romney goes on to mention how duplicative and wasteful government is, and talks about how he would "cut the fat". I think this is an interesting take on how to fix government, but how realistic is this in light of the discussion we had today? Government rarely shrinks, not even under avowed small-government politicians like Reagan. Given Romney's lack of inside-the-beltway experience, I really wonder whether he would really be able to pull this off.

But if Romney actually wins, I guess anything is possible.

Geoff Lewis

FBCI

Over the weekend I was thinking about something from last week's topic. It is small and relatively unimportant, but I was curious about it nonetheless. I was wondering about the Office of Faith-based and Community Initiatives. I imagine it has played a significant role during the Bush presidency in catering to the religious voters. But I was thinking about the role this office would have in a Romney administration. Just how much does the religious preference of the president influence this office? Would Romney use this office to promote a Mormon faith-based agenda? Or would he specifically refrain from this? I also was thinking of what would happen in a Giuliani presidency, where faith clearly is not of much of importance. How would this office look under his stewardship? I guess I am wondering whether this office tends to be filled by members of the president's church, or if it is simply given (almost like a cabinet position) to someone who will please religious supporters.

Campaign Strategy in the Democratic Primary

According to this Politico article http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1107/6816.html, it looks like Clinton and Obama are taking opposite strategies. Clinton opts for the partisan technique, rallying the base and "turning up the heat" against Republicans. Obama, on the other hand, is going for the "nation healed" motto and seeks to "reunite the country."

Why do you think these two candidates are going for these distinct strategies? What about Clinton makes "turning up the heat" more appropriate versus "a nation healed?" Also, what about the enviornment? When does the political enviornment call for a more conciliatory approach?

Also, does anyone know of examples in history where multiple candidates ganged up on the front runner in a primary and that front runner lost? If so, which underdog took the nomination? Has this proven to be a successful campaign strategy?