Thoughts of the Supreme Court Battle

Here are some thoughts from others:

• Steve Soto at The Left Coaster

  Lastly, remember that Rove always chooses to fight as aggressively and on as many fronts as possible, and never allows Bush to cut deals and pull his chips back. These guys don’t negotiate against themselves and will make the Democrats earn their victories and won’t hand them anything in advance. So if anyone things that Bush will sense that he is weak and nominate a moderate to the court and ditch Bolton because of bad poll numbers, forget it. It isn’t going to happen. Nothing will be considered with this bunch if it has even the slightest connotation of weakness about it. And that will be their downfall.

  
  Read the rest.


• Washington Post, Nomination Could Be Defining Moment for Bush

  The Supreme Court is the lone branch of government where conservatives have been unable to gain the dominant voice, to the great frustration of those on the right. Among the most ardent conservatives, there is no better evidence of the need to change the court than two decisions that marked the end of the term this summer, which limited displays of the Ten Commandments on government property and gave local governments the power to seize private property for commercial development.
  
  The choice ahead for Bush in selecting a successor to O'Connor may prove to be the most important domestic decision of his presidency, given its potential impact on abortion and other issues and rivaling Iraq in its ability to split the country. He will soon decide just how far to try to push the court in a different direction. The bolder he is, the more likely he will touch off a battle that will consume Washington and much of the country for the rest of the summer and whose impact could be felt in the 2006 elections and beyond.
  
  There are huge risks for Bush no matter which way he moves. He faces enormous pressure from the right to appoint someone more conservative than O'Connor. But such a move risks a potentially bruising battle with Senate Democrats and a backlash among voters in the middle of the ideological spectrum, who may worry about the GOP's social and cultural agenda.
  
  But leading Republicans said Bush must move decisively to remake the court. "Given the disastrous decisions of the last few days on private property rights, the Ten Commandments and violent criminals, I think the majority that elected Bush and the House and Senate clearly expects a very conservative nomination," said former House speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia.

  The rest.....


• Over at RedState.Org they are urging Bush to recognize his power is at an all time low and that a divisive nomininee will further erode his power.

  The President’s power status always and everywhere constrains the choices he is able to make. Unfortunately, Bush's power status is at an all-time low. If this vacancy had occurred in December, 2001 or November, 2003, he would be in a better position. At those times, the public was more likely to follow him, and the Congress was more likely to fear him. At those times, his power was greater. He could more easily get that which he wanted because those in Congress feared the electoral consequences of defying him. That is not the case today. As you are no doubt aware, his poll numbers have sagged. The public is not as eager to listen to him, and seem to have coalesced around opinions he has spent time and energy arguing against.

So what will happen? I don't know but as Joe Gandelman says:

Good advice. And it which boils down to this: GWB shouldn't go with a less polarizing, more unifying choice that can meet some of his ideological goals but not unleash joint political dismemberment in the Senate.

Good advice. But, then, this administration has often marched to the beat of its own drummer.

Karl Rove, George Bush and the Radical Christian Right don't compromise. I expect a battle, one that could not only seriously damage the Republican Party but damage the United States in the process.