If this is true, why didn’t he nominate a gold-plated conservative in the first place? I gotta think they had a list of anti-abortion judges, but decided they didn’t want the fallout from nuclear option in the Senate (or some other reason that is not yet clear). Perhaps I am giving the White House too much credit for considering the consequences of their actions, but there has to be a reason we didn’t see Janice Rogers Brown or Edith Jones nominated in the first go around. And that hasn’t changed. They will be beating the bushes for a Roberts clone, with unassailable credentials, but a cipher on the social issues.
I agree. I think that the Republican Party has had a hellacious summer and early fall, and the last thing they need right now is a controversial candidate. The problem, of course, is that it’s going to be very hard to avoid a controversial candidate. A Roberts-type schmoe is about the best they can hope for: someone that will satisfy their base without giving Democrats something else to carp on.
Daniel
Perhaps they thought they didn’t have to and could avoid the wrangling.
The social conservatives have gone along with it for a while. Maybe the less conservative thought they’d go along again?
Or maybe they weren’t even confident of holding the simple majority that the nuclear option would require, especially since most of their margin as it is is included in the Bipartisan Caucus that defused the bomb earlier. Since then, Bush’s claim on GOP Senators to give him whatever he asks for has eroded substantially.
He can’t force a hardliner through, but he can submit another crypto like Roberts and still not outrage the GOP’s base in the Religious Right. It’ll take a more convincing explanation than he can come up with by himself, though.
But I would have thought that on the question of SCOTUS nominees, Bush is about as conservative as those who decried the Miers nomination. Why would they want to avoid the wrangling? They never have before. They have the votes, and they have demonstrated repeatedly they don’t care about collateral damage, so long as the agenda is advanced. That is why I don’t understand why he nominated anyone less than an obvious right-winger, unless there are other, really onerous consequences they feel they must avoid.
Perhaps, but it is my perception that if the Dems dare to filibuster, the Gang of Fourteen falls apart, and the Republicans will all cleave to the party line.
Schmoe? SCHMOE??? Can you define that term? I didn’t realize it meant: A singularly brilliant mind, usually in the legal profession…
In my opinion, he isn’t a social conservative. Or, rather, he might be, but he doesn’t care enough about social conservatism to act on its behalf unless it’s to his benefit.
Well, he isn’t a fiscal conservative, either. What is he then?
I think a lot of people are asking that question…
I actually do think he’s pretty much a social conservative. He might not be really so gung-ho anti-abortion, but on other issues, like SSM and the role of religion, he’s right there with the “best” of them. Not the hate-mongers, but the solidly social conservatives who think so-called traditional values need to be re-inforced by the government.
An opportunist?
Politician? Although, that’s kinda the same thing… 
I have a tendency to assign brilliance to people who’s opinions reflect mine own. I suspect it is a tendency we share.
The front-man for a horde of looters?
[mild rant]
Seriously, my theory for some time has been that pretty much everything the Bushies do is explained by two motivations: (1) to loot America on behalf of the rich and the big corporations, and (2) to maintain and expand the political power to be able to keep on doing so.
The same seems to apply to the Republican majority in Congress.
Simple, elegant, and explains practically everything.
So is Bush a social conservative? Can’t tell, not sure it matters. He’s come across to them like one for all these years; now maybe they’re not so sure it wasn’t just an act to get their votes. And it might have been - the fundies are a huge vote bank that the GOP is absolutely dependent on. But his main allegiance is to his class and to the corporate world, and while he’ll give the social conservatives everything he can without going against that primary loyalty, he’s Mammon’s man before he’s the ‘Christian’ Right’s man.
(You can’t serve both God and Mammon, but the conflicts between the fundies and Mammon are considerably more infrequent and low-key, hence the long-term alliance that’s served both sides quite well. But I digress.)
That’s my theory, anyway. That was a long-winded answer to the question, but the one-sentence answer by itself would have been one of those irritatingly cryptic statements that I hate when other posters do them.
[/rant]
Maybe, but that’s not really relavent in this case. There was a general concensus on both sides of the aisle about Roberts being one of the top legal minds in the country. I didn’t just make that up.
My understanding is that Roberts was (is?) considered one of the top corporate attorneys in the country, which doesn’t necessarily equate to being a general-purpose “top legal mind”.
You’re understand is wrong (empahsis added).
And that’s from someone who voted **against **his confirmation!
I guess that wasn’t reported widely in the leftwing blogs…
I think everybody has that tendency, but I thought Roberts was an outstanding candidate and will be probably be a good Chief Justice. How often I will agree with his rulings is an open question.