Adam Liptak in The Times:

For the first time in its history, every member of the United States Supreme Court is a former federal appeals court judge. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., in a lively and surprising talk a couple of weeks ago, said that development may be a good thing.

Over the life of the Supreme Court, its members were quite likely to be former governors, legislators, cabinet members, law professors and practicing lawyers. That mix of backgrounds and expertise might strike some as valuable, but the chief justice suggested that it tended to inject policy and politics into an area properly reserved for the law.

As late as 1972, when Chief Justice Roberts's predecessor, William H. Rehnquist, joined the court as an associate justice, former federal judges were in the minority.

As a consequence, Chief Justice Roberts said, "the practice of constitutional law -- how constitutional law was made -- was more fluid and wide ranging than it is today, more in the realm of political science."

Since then, Chief Justice Roberts continued, "the method of analysis and argument shifted to the more solid grounds of legal arguments. What are the texts of the statutes involved? What precedents control?"

That move, he said, has resulted in "a more legal perspective and less of a policy perspective."

Matt Cooper writing over at his new digs, TPM DC, disagrees with Chief Justice John Roberts, suggesting that the Supreme Court would be better served with membership including a wider background including those who have held elective office. I've written at some length on the topic in the past, and hope to write some more on it in the future (including perhaps my writing requirement for law school), and have come to the same conclusion as Cooper.

Liptak notes that this is the first time in United States history that the Supreme Court is entirely made up of former federal appellate judges. It is also only the second time in 220 years that the Court is without a justice with legislative experience (the other time being the period between Hugo Black's retirement in 1971 and Sandra Day O'Connor's selection in 1981). Indeed, as of 2005, when I first wrote on this subject, more than two in five members of the Supreme Court throughout history have had experience serving in a legislature, including more than one in five who had served in Congress.

This doesn't mean that the Supreme Court should function like a super-legislature, or that it was intended to function as such. But those who have previously served in public office, more than those who have remained in the ivory tower of academia or the highest of courts, have a better sense of the practical impact their decisions can have on citizens of this country. Perhaps more importantly, they, better than those who haven't spent some times in politics, understand how to expand a divided and divisive 5 to 4 majority -- which we seem to be seeing more and more of as the narrow conservative majority on the Court appears intent to press it's advantage to overturn decades of precedent -- into a more stable 6 to 3, or even 7 to 2 majority.

So as I've argued before, and Cooper writes today, I think it's time to go back to what has worked for the past couple hundred years rather than simply follow Roberts' lead and consider not just career jurists for the bench but also those with more varying backgrounds -- including those with experience in elective office.

While conventional wisdom is that the GOP is quite pleased with itself for having stood united against the stimulus package and, remarkably, many in the media consider the GOP warriors winners in the debate, Jason Linkins has a great piece at HuffPo demonstrating a real divide between the triumphalism of conservatives in congress and the exasperation of conservatives looking on from the outside.

Linkins takes David Frum as an example, who railed against GOP  members' anti-San Francisco mouse strategy:

The problem with the story is not that it was false. The problem with the story is that it was stupid.

The US economy has plunged into severe recession (94% of Americans describe economic conditions as "bad," according to the Feb 2-4 CBS poll, and 51% say conditions are getting even worse).

President Obama and the Democrats have responded by steering the US radically to the left. [...]

We're facing more regulation of everything from high finance to the ordinary workplace. The Democrats are expanding Medicaid to crowd out private insurance. The federal government wants a huge new role in redirecting private investment in transportation and energy in the name of "green jobs."

And facing all this - we're talking about mice?

Could we possibly act more inadequate to the challenge? More futile? More brain dead?

Frum and I agree on little but I can get on board that last sentence. You see, we're coming together already.

Linkins next quotes Ross Douthat, conservative Atlantic blogger and self-styled Republican Party reformer, who agrees with Frum and bemoans the lack of leadership in the Republican Party:

Whereas today's Republican Party has no leaders at all, if you define leaders as politicians with the credibility and power to chart a new course for the party, as opposed to having it charted for them by the GOP's most vocal constituents and most ideological backbenchers. John McCain was mistrusted by the base, but he at least had run, and won, a national primary campaign, and thus could claim a mandate to lead the party with at least some degree of plausibility. Whereas the GOP's leaders in Washington, your Mitch McConnells and John Boehners, owe their power entirely to backroom politics: Nobody loves them, nobody trusts them, and as a result they're in no position to execute the kind of pivots that the party needs to make. One can reasonably expect them to do better than they've done to date when it comes to articulating an actual alternative to Obamanomics - i.e. more Larry Lindsey, less Jim DeMint - but one can't expect them to do much better. They simply don't have enough room to maneuver.

Douthat's hope:

...the more likely road to revival for the GOP probably starts outside Washington, with politicians who can afford to be experimental without constantly worrying about what Rush Limbaugh would say about them.

Unfortunately for Douthat's little theory, however, it's precisely the Republicans outside of Washington who are the ones supporting the stimulus package because, ya know, they're actually in the states...with the people...and the roads...and the jobs. And they tend to be more moderate, an increasingly rare breed within Washington, but a newly strong force within the party since they are legitimately a part of Obama's governing coalition. All of which point to more faults within the Republican Party, and certainly belie the delusionally triumphant ode to unity Eric Cantor sent out this weekend.

Yesterday on Meet The Press, David Axelrod would not commit to saying when President Obama would name his third nominee to head the Commerce department, only that it would be rather soon. Their usual M.O. has been to leak a name as being "at the top of the list" and then a few days later naming that person, so if precedent holds, we could have Secretary Ford in the not too distant future.

From First Read:

On paper, Ford checks a lot of boxes for a an easy-to-confirm nominee for this post: He's a pro-business Democrat (remember, this is Commerce Secretary so the job is to be a promoter of business); he's a former member of the Congressional Black Caucus (you'll recall this whole kerfuffle over control of the census under a Judd Gregg-led Commerce Dept. was started by complaints from the CBC); and he's a practiced spokesperson on TV (the Geithner rollout this week is a reminder that the administration doesn't have enough solid media savvy members of his team who can sell the administration's policies.)

Chuck Todd suggests that perhaps Ford's current position at Merrill Lynch could make such an appointment tricky and wonders out loud whether Ford received one of Merrill's infamous seven figure bonuses last year. I think it's telling that Ford issued a statement not to play down the idea of him at Commerce but rather to defend his Merrill ties:

Ford's folks tell me that he never received a bonus in his time at Merrill Lynch nor was he involved in developing or selling anything having to do with mortgage securities. Ford's job was simply business development and advising clients on domestic or int'l issues. Bottom line: no one close to Ford believes he has a Merrill problem.

--->Join the movement to bring Sam to MSNBC HERE

Japan's GDP Contracts -12.7%
The government of Japan reported its GDP numbers for the 4Q08. Japan's real gross domestic product shrank at an annual rate of 12.7 percent from October to December. This marks the third consecutive quarter of economic contraction in the world's second largest economy. The Japanese economy is facing a declining export sector that had previously kept the economy afloat and it continues to be plagued by lackluster consumer spending and anemic business investment. The downturn is the most severe in Japan since the oil shocks of 1973-74. More from the New York Times.

The numbers are mind numbing. While the Japanese case is not wholly analogous to our own, there are some takeaways. One of the biggest mistakes that Japanese policy makers have made is to prematurely withdraw their fiscal stimulus in vain attempts at budgetary discipline. These fits and starts have simply put decimitated the tax receipts according to Richard Koo, chief economist at Nomura Securities. In this kind of environment, Dr. Koo argues that a "proactive fiscal policy is far more desirable" in sustaining the economy and thus raising tax revenue. If the economy stutters, then tax receipts collapse only aggravating the deficit further. This is sound advice on both sides of the Pacific.

Japanese officials are considering drafting a fresh fiscal stimulus package to stem the downturn before the economy collapses. Prime Minister Taro Aso has promised spending worth almost 50 trillion yen ($545 billion) in two packages.

discuss...

Roland Burris held another cringe-inducing press conference today, this one to address the charges that he misled the Illinois House Impeachment Committee in January when asked about any contacts he may have had with Gov. Blagojevich or people close to him prior to receiving the appointment to the Senate. During the press conference Burris was combative with reporters and embarked on some revisionist history regarding his candor when asked whether he spoke with Gov. Blagojevich's brother, Rob. Burris's new and improved affidavit admits that yes, he did speak with Rob Blagojevich; as you can see from his testimony back in January, however, when asked specifically about contact with Rob Blagojevich, he, at best, ignored the question (h/t Progress Illinois.)

Here's how he explained it at the press conference today:

Some context from Progress Illinois:

As you can see, Burris is trying to focus all the attention on State Rep. Jim Durkin's line of questioning during the January 8 hearing -- claiming that Durkin didn't give him a chance to fully illustrate the extent of his contacts with Blagojevich aides prior to the governor's arrest. And indeed, as the video we posted yesterday shows, Durkin passed up an opportunity to press Burris on this matter (as did all the committee members who subsequently questioned him).

But that's really beside the point.

Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Tribune said on CNN today that she suspects this is more a political problem for Burris than a legal one, since Burris may have a technical out to explain his answer back in January. Of course, that's not stopping the Illinois GOP from pursuing perjury charges and calling on Burris to resign. As for any action that might be taken by the US Senate, Sen. Reid, understandably, is punting.

He said Reid "is reviewing the affidavit and will await any action by Illinois legislative leaders after they review the matter."

Thanks to Political Machine for bringing this new hilarious video from the triumphalist GOP whips to my attention. To the tune of Aerosmith's "Back In The Saddle" (presumably with Joe Perry's blessing), Eric Cantor and Kevin McCarthy boast that '0' Republicans voted for the "Democrats' wasteful spending bill."

Watch the proud tribute to obstructionism below:

What's more interesting than the content (such as it is) of the video, though, is the branding of the whips -- Cantor and McCarthy -- as the new stars of the GOP. Boehner is nowhere to be found. And predictably, the whips' online presence completely rips off Obama. The familiar justified white text on light blue background that opens the video is only the beginning, go check out RepublicanWhip.House.Gov to see the extent to which, even aesthetically, the GOP has no new ideas.

I do have to give them credit for the branding of the whips as the new power brokers in the GOP House caucus, though. It is the whips whose job it is to keep their caucus in line (mission accomplished) and they are tapping into what I think is a very real desire among the GOP base for a unified front of opposition while at the same time filling a vacuum of leadership in the party. And the word "whip" is such a great word, evocative both as a verb and a noun, although they'd be well-advised to rename the site's "Whipping Post" section to avoid reminders of a horrible time in our history. All in all, though, the website is actually a pretty impressive online tool and I encourage everyone to take the whips up on their offer to "join the conversation" on Twitter:

We believe that this website should be an open forum for you to discuss your ideas and concerns for the future of our country. In that spirit, we'd like to invite you to join this conversation - use the hashtag #cantor in your tweet (your Twitter message) and your message will display on this page.

Now that Cantor and McCarthy are the new stars of the congressional GOP, one can expect that their very mandate is to oppose the president and the congressional Democrats for opposition's sake. Yet another clear indication that there is no compromising with these people, nor should we try.