That wasn’t irony, it was crass sarcasm.
My take: GWB wants someone confirmable. For all that the anti-Bush people on here are convinced that he’s a raving ideologue, I don’t see that in his persona (probably not the right place to open a big debate on his overall extremism or lack thereof; just noting that I don’t see him as being personally consumed with anti-Roe zeal or losing any sleep over it). Putting aside the Patriot Act and Iraq (two big things to put aside, and again not to open side debates), where I do think he’s been unyielding in the face of the policies’ real unpopularity and possibly indefensibility, Bush and his handlers do seem to be concerned with trying to sell him as a “uniter.” I know, I know, you don’t agree, it’s all fake, etc. But whether you agree that all his outreach to women and Hispanics and blacks, or selling himself as some type of education President, is phony and baseless, the fact remains he thinks he can sell himself as a uniter not divider, etc.
Put it this way: I don’t think he’ll nominate Bork, which would be the obvious thing to do if you wanted an in-your-face endorsement of strict constructionism or wanted to send a shot across the liberals’ bow. I think someone like Gonzales is his perfect candidate; he’s already shown he thinks he can steal marches on the Dems. by appointing minorities, not that it has won him many votes from minorities or much respect from the Dems. And Gonzales is, in Republican speak, about as squishy on the controversial social issues as, well, the entire Bush family and most GOP nominees in recent memory.
Politically, what’s his reason not to? Unless he’s planning for Jeb to run, which I hope he isn’t, he’s got little downside to disappointing his conservative base once again (remember, this is the Administration that told the S.C. that “diversity” was a compelling state interest, but that you could have other types of diversity programs than the current affirmative action – which pretty much conceded the game before the coin flip). GWB isn’t a lawyer or a legal activist, and I doubt he spends much time, when he’s thinking about his legacy, thinking about future jurisprudence – I’m not criticizing his intellect, just saying that is not one of his obsesssions, and if it’s one of his base’s obsesssions, so what?
Just my handicapping (and, by the way, that of several pessimists I’ve talked to on the right – they’re handicapping it something like this: Gonzales (no real danger to the libs here); “some woman” (W is for women, and his tokenism streak won’t allow him to replace SDO’C with a man, if she’s among the first retirees; and while I could imagine a female judge voting against Roe, it’s simply less likely); and maybe a third, who could be a Souter type (like father, like son), could be another “diversity” pick (hey, I could have my legacy be to pick the first Asian Justice!), but if the other two picks went “squishy,” wouldn’t be much threat to the liberals in any case. So if you’re worried that the Right is uniformly triumphalist and already planning the victory dance – don’t be. Precedent is on your side as far as Republican Presidents not really trying, or trying but failing, in appointing allegedly-right-wing Justices to undo the very effective Warren and post-Warren activism.