Bush is apparently close to nominating Sandra Day O’Connor’s replacement on the Supreme Court, and there’s lot of speculation surrounding Judge Edith Clement of the U.S. Court of Appeals in New Orleans. Maybe, maybe not – we might know later today.
In any case, here’s what we can expect.
1: The nominee will be a conservative – perhaps an extremist conservative.
2: Bush will depict the nominee as a centrist/moderate in the mold of O’Connor.
How can we know this? Well, we’ve been watching for the past few years. First, the idea that Dubya would break with the base and nominate a legit moderate is pretty laughable – when has he done anything that we could point to as a precedent for that kind of uniter-not-divider leadership?
Then comes the part where he and his staff frame the nominee. These are the people who have spent the past five years bringing us various iterations of “Defeat is Victory,” “War is Peace,” Ignorance is Knowledge,” “Slavery is Freedom,” “Lies are Truth,” and so on. Never mind the demonstrable facts of what they do, they will say they are doing whatever is most advantageous. There is no requirement at all that words and deeds be consistent. Shame is dead. Hypocrisy is history.
So we should expect the obvious. They’ll appoint somebody that’s in line with their view of how America ought to be. And they’ll tell us that black is white. Duh.
For those of who think that maybe we’ll get a moderate type because Bush needs to get this judge through the confirmation gauntlet, which has both sides already armed for war, forget about it. Given the very real threat posed by Treasongate, a controversial nominee would actually be a good thing for Bush. A protracted siege in the Senate over a fringe-Right neo-Puritan nut case would take the media spotlight off Karl Rove, and I promise you, that is more important to those in power right now than anything. They’d put Ted Kennedy on the Court if it would save Rove’s ass….
As is so often the case, I really hope I’m wrong.