WP: Bush Expected to Push for a Conservative (Supreme Court nominee)

[Pirate Smile]

Bush Expected to Push for a Conservative

By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 25, 2005; Page A12

With the Senate filibuster dispute behind it, the White House is bracing for a high-stakes battle to fill a seat on the Supreme Court that many expect to come open next month and that could help shape the remainder of President Bush's second term.

For all the appeals for bipartisan harmony, Bush is unlikely to nominate a consensus justice, and Democrats are unlikely to find his choice acceptable, current and former White House officials said. If Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who is ailing, retires at the end of the term as much of Washington expects, the officials said Bush is prepared to name a committed conservative regardless of Democratic opposition.

The names that Bush aides are considering for the first open Supreme Court seat in 11 years have already drawn sharp criticism from liberals, and the interest-group machinery on both sides has been mobilizing for war. By any measure, both sides forecast a titanic struggle akin to a national election campaign, a battle waged with the weapons of 21st-century politics against the backdrop of red-state-blue-state ideological division.

"We have not had a confirmation process in the modern era . . . and I think the people inside government are not fully appreciative of how different this is going to be," said Bradford A. Berenson, who served as associate White House counsel during Bush's first term. "In all imaginable scenarios, this will be a battle royale."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/24/AR2005052401596.html

I saw a bunch of these - "a senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity" - I thought we wouldn't do that anymore! But that is how the White House gets their message out.

[knowbody0]

1. distraction fodder

[merh]

2. Gee what a shocker.

That media, they are really on the ball.

At least we still have the filibuster. :evilgrin:

[BulletproofLandshark]

3. Well shit, I can't believe it!

n/t

[PartyPooper]

4. This is why they stole the 2000 and 2004 elections.

This is what it was all about. Think about it.

[Placebo]

5. Replacing a conservative with a conservative.

I don't see why that's set to cause such a huge problem.

[shanti]

12. exactly

it's the choice AFTER next that will be telling.

[alcibiades_mystery]

6. Replace Rehnquist with a conservative? Who cares?

Dems should jujitsu on the Rehnquist replacement, and fight like hell on any O'Conner or Stevens replacement. See? We're being reasonable! It's the President who's not...

[anotherdrew]

7. going to PUSH for one... I hope he can make it come out. maybe exlax time?

[hippiechick]

8. OMG, I am SO surprised !!!

:yawn:

[Erika]

9. Bush is being marginalized more each day

Another Judge like O'Connor would be acceptable. He tries to stick in a fanatic anti-choice partisan, and this country will explode into fireworks.

[deanathon]

11. Harry Reid said he would only accept

an O'Conner, Kennedy, or Souter type and not a Scalia or Thomas type.

In order for Bush to get a judge confirmed he needs Reid's approval so it really doesn't matter who Bush wants.

[leesa]

10. No! Ya think? Such incisive investigative reporting!

[sharman]

13. The deal has already been worked out

That's my take--that there will be no dramatic battle--there may be wailing and gnashing of teeth but no battle--because the Gang of 14, the 7 Dems and 7 Repubs who made the filibuster deal, have already made agreements among themselves who they will accept. And furthermore, the Memorandum warns the pres to talk to them first, before sticking his neck out, risking public embarassment, by naming names.

I think it's all a done deal; I hope we can trust the 7 Repubs