[John Jorsett]

I knew this was coming. The NYT thinks it's just peachy to filibuster judicial appointments as long as they're Republican appointees. I hope this is just the first of many Bush recess appointments, although I suspect this is just a shot across the Democratic bow to see if he can shake loose some of the other blocked Senate votes.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Its called selective reporting in the scribbling profession.

[gooleyman]

...although I suspect this is just a shot across the Democratic bow to see if he can shake loose some of the other blocked Senate votes.

-----
AND...a recess appointment here and an recess appointment there hides the total political motive. To keep this issue in the electorate's short memories as to WHO is REALLY holding up the judicial nominations....the DemocRATS. If he did a bunch of them now, there would be no more for later. If he did a bunch of them near the election, it would be covered as simply a bid to get re-elected. Hopefully this strategy will result in more Conservatives being elected to the Senate and make it easier to get nominations through next term.

My Father-in-law, rest his soul, used to tell me all the time that people were like sheep. My add-on theory to that is if they can be led in the wrong way, they can just as easily be led in the right way too. Bush is using the gentle sheep herders mentality. Good move, IMHO. Keep it up.

[highlander_UW]

I knew this was coming. The NYT thinks it's just peachy to filibuster judicial appointments as long as they're Republican appointees. I hope this is just the first of many Bush recess appointments, although I suspect this is just a shot across the Democratic bow to see if he can shake loose some of the other blocked Senate votes.

I agree, I hope Bush fills ever vacant judicial position over the next week.