Bush, however, "may be rattled by the criticism for mishandling Hurricane Katrina, and he may think it would be better to avoid a big fight over the court. He's always wanted to nominate his attorney general, Alberto Gonzales--he likes him, is loyal to him, and would appreciate the symbolism of putting the first Hispanic on the court. So he might be sorely tempted to do so now.
"Would any of his aides have the nerve to tell him that as Supreme Court jurists go, Gonzales would be mediocre--and not a solid bet to move the court in a constitutionalist direction? Would any of them have the nerve to explain to the president that a Gonzales nomination would utterly demoralize many of his supporters, who are sticking with him and his party, through troubles in Iraq and screw-ups with Katrina, precisely because they want a few important things out of a Bush presidency--and one of these is a more conservative court? Would any of them tell the president that risking a core item in the conservative agenda for the sake of either friendship, diversity, or short-term political spin, would be substantively wrong, and politically disastrous?"
Would any of them dare to include a copy of Kristol's piece in the White House clips?
Ron Brownstein agrees in the LAT that Bush may have overplayed his hand:
"Some analysts in both parties contend it would be more difficult for the White House to fill the O'Connor seat with anyone else as conservative as Roberts--whose affable manner, limited paper trail and sterling legal credentials frustrated opponents trying to organize against him.
"With Bush's new move, he may have enlisted Roberts for a job that others could have done: winning confirmation as a conservative replacement for the staunchly conservative Rehnquist. Meanwhile, Bush may have diverted Roberts from a mission for which he appeared unusually well-suited: winning confirmation to succeed O'Connor."
On the liberal side, Ezra Klein sees a dilemma for the Dems:
"This is a very, very savvy move by Bush. If the Senate had confirmed Roberts but not made him chief, Stevens, a liberal, would've become acting chief by virtue of seniority, and when the session opened, unless a Chief could be hustled onto the Court, liberals would have held as many seats as conservatives and they'd be setting the agenda. Roberts, too, is young, he'll have the power to reshape and direct the Court for four or five decades -- that's some [expletive] appointment for a guy who's only been a judge for two years!.
"If they lay down for Roberts, given the gravity and meaning of his appointment, Bush will be freed to nominate whomever he wants."
Scott Shields at MyDD questions whether opposition can be based on ideology:
"Roberts had been O'Connor's replacement. Now he's Rehnquist's. As my wife points out, this gives the lie to the GOP claim that Roberts is a moderate. If he's conservative enough to replace Rehnquist, he's no moderate.
"By the same token, can we continue to oppose Roberts because he's not a moderate? I never thought that was the best criticism to begin with. If Kerry had been elected, would he have been expected to nominate a conservative to replace the conservative Rehnquist?"
