Infinite Monkeys

It should be quite a show. I can't believe it's been 10 years since the last Supreme Court change. With at least one (and probably two or three) more Justices departing in the next two years, this one will set the tone.

I'm expecting the tone to be ear piercing and painful.

You'd have to be crazy to accept the nomination, wouldn't you? Either that or 100% confident that nothing even vaguely embarrassing could possibly be found. Or even invented.

Imagine if Bush nominates AG the AG?

Will the Left bring up the so-called torture memos again?

Will the Conservative rebel?

Would an AG fthe AG nomination so piss-off the base that it might cost the GOP the Senate in 2006?

My predictions: No. Yes. Yes.

I don't think the Dems opposition to AG the AG when he was nominated as Attorney General was not principled. The Dems will jump at confirming AG, since it means one less chance of a conservative.

By all means, matter spattering from the fan my originate from either side of the party divide, depending on the opening moves of this summer chess match.

It's going to happen in one of two ways:

a) Go for the nuttiest tin-foil hat judge and cause a big shouting match in the Senate, accuse Democrats for being obstructionist, pull the candidate, and pass someone slightly more palatable to the people. When (if?) Rehnquist goes, repeat, but this time the guy who believes going after porn and flag-burning is more important than preserving women's rights and the theory of evolution

b) Nominate a firmly conservative "centrist" with weak resistance from Democrats, but still gets passed easily. See above for a second opening.

In neither case do I see Bush agreeing on someone beforehand with the Senate, which is how Reagan, his dad, and Clinton all did it. Damn shame, because that would definitely look good for the president and the Congress, at a time when the people see them as a stubborn right-wing tool and a bunch of whining blowhards, respectively.

Not to suggest that the Republicans AREN'T blowhards, but the International Whining Blowhard Cup has to go to the Democrats. "Waaahhh, we're not in power. Waahhh, we're going to filibuster your nominees. Waaahhh, ask us for our advice. I'm going to tell mom!!!"

Now, I agree that King George is a tool, but he's more of a statist tool. Other than some social policy issues, there's not a truly conservative (or even classically liberal) bone in his body.

All that said, I think GW should nominate as constructionist a judge as he can get a confirmation for. "Bipartisanship" is just rhetoric employed by the losing party to try and get people to listen to them. Nominating a "consensus candidate" will not earn the Republicans a single vote in the 2006 or 2008 elections, nor will it actually be good for the court, so why bother trying to make the Democratic senators feel loved?

Oh, a contrary point: I'm definitely opposed to removing the filibuster rule. Anything that slows down any congressional process is a good thing in my book.

However, someone should actually have to FILIBUSTER, not just fail to vote for cloture. Let the resistance sit there and read the phone book day after day after day if they want to, but don't let them just take their quorum and go home.

Oh, one more thing, while I'm at it. Why is it the Supreme Court's job to "protect" the theory of evolution? Isn't that the job of its supporters in the scientific community?

Conversely, I don't see how, as a practical matter, a conservative Supreme Court justice has the power to "go after" porn and/or flag burning. Practically speaking, it's much easier for the court to endorse and/or permit practices than to forbid them. A constructionist, in particular, is going to be loathe to legislate from the bench anyway, and would be particularly hard-pressed to come up with a constitutional argument for supressing flag-burning.

At "worst", a socially conservative court could decline to declare legislation regulating these practices to be "unconstitutional". But that hardly qualifies as "going after" the practices. More like turning a blind eye to the legislators who are doing the actual work.