Probably Best To Wait

An Associated Press story notes that President Bush may not make his second SCOTUS nomination quickly.

Senior White House officials do not expect the president to make his choice known this week, and possibly not until after the Senate holds a confirmation hearing that begins Monday for John Roberts, Bush's nominee for chief justice.

John Roberts is now slated for the Chief Justice position, and as such he would be directly replacing the late William Rehnquist, buried today at Arlington Cemetary.  Roberts is predicted to be similar in philosophy to Rehnquist, for whom he clerked.

"It's hard to imagine a choice more similar to Chief Justice Rehnquist than John Roberts," says Walter Dellinger, a former U.S. solicitor general. "They both love the law and they both are among a handful of the most intellectually accomplished legal minds."

The glowing endorsement of Mr. Dellinger, the former solicitor general under President Clinton, makes plain that the Democrats will have a tough time blocking him from the court.  It's hard to imagine "extraordinary circumstances" that would allow a filibuster.  It also makes sense to elevate Roberts directly to the Chief Justice position given those stellar credentials.  In addition, as Pres. Bush's first nominee it is reasonable to assume that Roberts is the absolute best that Bush can offer.

A second nominee will now be seen as the replacement for Sandra Day O'Connor, and Democrats and the liberal activist groups will be looking for a "moderate."

If confirmed, Roberts is expected to vote much like the late Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist he would replace. So if Roberts-for-Rehnquist is a wash and Bush wants to make the court more conservative, he would have to nominate someone to the right of O'Connor. O'Connor is a judicial conservative but sometimes sided with the liberal bloc of the court, something that earned her the tag of swing voter.

"That's the dilemma Bush faces," [Sen. Chuck] Schumer said.

"Because Roberts is in the mold of Rehnquist, what most Americans would say is for the associate justice pick, (Bush should choose) someone a little more moderate — in the mold of O'Connor," he said. "At first blush, Gonzales might well fit that, but obviously you'd want to so some research."

With all due respect, Sen. Schumer, you were not elected President, Bush was.  I'm fairly certain that he's not looking to your party for advice.  There's also some wishful thinking and evidence of liberal bias on the part of this story's writer, Deb Reichmann.

Burdened with low poll ratings and stung by criticism that the government responded slowly to Hurricane Katrina, Bush might not have the political standing to try to steer the court hard right with his replacement for O'Connor.

Well, what in President Bush's actions in the last 5 years makes you think that "low poll ratings" or criticism will influence him to avoid picking the candidate of his choice?  And, Ms. Reichmann, steering the court "hard right" is borrowed straight from the lexicon of PFAW.  You should watch your phraseology - it betrays you.

I think it's likely Bush will wait, primarily because if there is a second conservative nominee (note: not "hard right" nominee) before Roberts clears the Senate Judiciary Committee then it's likely to make both of their paths bumpier.  Now, slated for the chief position and with even Mr. Dellinger singing Roberts praise it's likely that he will be moved through with only the histrionics of Sens. Schumer, Leahy and Kennedy to make you wince.

However, better gird your loins for the Fight of the Century with nominee #2, because, no matter who it is, that candidate will be portrayed by Democrats and the media as the political equivalent of Freddy Kruger - a blood-thirsty slasher who's off the scale to the right.  The fact that it won't be a white male may help with the left, but not much.

Linked at OTB.

9/7/05 2045: You see, this is what I meant when I referred to histrionics from the Democratic Senators.

As if the tragedy has not been exploited enough, now the democrats will use it to attack John Roberts nomination to Chief Justice.

Say what?

9/8/05 1145: Power Line's John Hinderaker writes in a similar vein in his Weekly Standard column today.  I would change 'if' to 'when' in the paragraph excerpted below.

If President Bush nominates another strong conservative to replace O'Connor, the result will be the political equivalent of World War III. Liberal interest groups will face an existential crisis if they do not fight bitterly to keep the Court's current ideological makeup. Win or lose, they have no choice but to make the effort to oppose Bush's second nominee. And, unfortunately for Republicans, it appears likely that any conservative jurist whom Bush may appoint will give the Democrats more ammunition than John Roberts did. So be prepared for the ugliest, most bitter confirmation battle in a generation.

Comments

[Jay]

Good post! Thanks for the link.

[Bornor]

It is clear who should be the nominee: Michael D. Brown. Brownie has experience in government, as a lawyer, and also was also a mediator in professional sports.

His spot-on performance as FEMA head shows he can deal with pressure. The guy is a rock star and clearly meets Bush's criteria for qualification.

Nominating anyone else would be a disservice to the country.

[Giacomo]

Bornor:
You forgot to write '/sarcasm off'.
Ordinarily I delete comments from those who refuse to give an email address - if you don't you're really not a serious person. Given that, despite your partisanship, you maintained civility you can stay.

[Mort]

Giacomo, I don't think Bornor is being sarcastic. Think how great a Brown nomineee would be! The liberals would totally freak and Bush would show he can't be pushed around. Brownie is lawyer and would make a great justice.

Bring em on!

[Giacomo]

Nah, I think it was sarcasm, Morticia. (BTW, great name.) The giveaways were the "spot-on performance as FEMA head" and "the guy is a rock star" cracks.