Friday, July 08, 2005

It Takes Two

I'm just thinking out loud here, but it seems to me that the politics of having two Supreme Court vacancies almost necessitates that Bush nominate two very conservative judges. Why? Consider his three options:

(1) Nominate two moderates. Signs a death warrant for Republican senatorial candidates on 2006. No way.

(2) Nominate a moderate and a conservative. This virtually assures that the conservative nominee will be filibustered, no matter how qualified he or she is. Democrats can point to the squishy nominee they’re letting through and then solemnly intone that they aren’t obstructionists, it’s just that they can’t in good conscience vote for the Neanderthal/fascist the president has nominated for the other seat. It’s a win-win proposition for Democrats and a sure loser for Bush.

(3) Nominate two staunch conservatives. If Bush nominates two judges whose conservative views are almost indistinguishable, Democrats won’t be able to oppose one without opposing both. And if they’re opposing two of the president’s nominees, they’ll have an awfully hard time not looking like knee-jerk partisan obstructionists.

Even if the president wanted to nominate a moderate like Alberto Gonzales, having two vacancies makes it very difficult for him to do so. My guess is, having the second seat open turns the Court from being a sticky wicket into a huge winner for Republicans (provided Bush picks smart, clean people).


Duane said...

Seem like pretty sound logic to me.

Bizarro Jack said...

In order to assist everyman in understanding the logic behind this post, I have provided this fictional monologue

G. W. Bush in JVL's mind says:
"Now that I have finally been given this gift of enormous judicial power, it has put things into perspective. Perhaps I've gone too far, and the reason that democrats risk their dwindling political capital on an extremely long series filibusters is because I can't come up with a reasonable judge for the federal bench. I just don't know any people like that. Perhaps its true what they say, that I am a lunatic fundamentalist who doesn't understand anyone who isn't a straight white protestant christian. I had better take a step back, and maybe throw a bone to the rest of the country by appointing a moderate judge."

Now back to reality - of COURSE he'll appoint two insanely conservative judges.

You may now return to your regularly scheduled pontification on whether the american voting public is smart enough to figure out whose fault a filibuster is. You only need a nominee that is moderate enough to please 5 democrats . . . the don't even have to get "yes" votes from those 5, they only have to seem less hurtful that a few days inactivity in the senate.

Anonymous said...

I figure that Bush won the election and has the right to nominate whomever he pleases. He'd be a fool to capitulate to the losing party, and he's no fool -- as much as the losing party wishes to portray him that way.

20-30 years from now, if the Dems are still in existence (or their successors), win a Presidential election, and one or more of Bush's appointees die, they can then nominate a couple of more Ginsberg's -- and that is their right...

Anonymous said...

Pretty solid analysis, JVL.