And the nominee to the Supreme Court is...

The news just broke. John Roberts from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals will be the nominee for the Supreme Court.

I was wrong.

And I am glad about that.

That is not to say that I am thrilled about Roberts being nominated, but I am very happy that Priscilla Owen is not getting the nomination.

Supreme Court announcement tonight

Bush is going to announce his appointment to replace O'Connor at 8:00 pm (central time) tonight. In the last two days there has been increasing attention given to the 5th Circuit as likely supplying the nominee, and there has been increasing discussion of a woman being appointed. The media coverage has focused on Edith Brown Clement and Edith Hollan Jones, with little mention of Priscilla Owen.

I discussed Clement in Handicapping the possible Supreme Court nominees, and I still maintain that even though Bush appointed her to the 5th Circuit, she does not have anywhere near the same ties to Bush as does Owen.

I have not previously discussed Jones. She was appointed to the 5th Circuit by Reagan. As reported by today's Washington Post,

Jones, 56, is considered by lawyers who practice before the 5th Circuit to be the most intellectual, the most abrasive and the most ideological. Although she is a favorite of the Christian right, both Democrats and Republicans question whether Bush would risk the inevitable Senate fight if he nominated her.

In some ways, it would seem that Jones would be a good choice by Bush standards. However, she has never struck me as one to be controlled by anyone, and she currently owes nothing to George W. Bush.

Also, Owen is younger than both Clement and Jones, she has completely established her cred with the winger base, she has very close ties to Bush (and Rove), and she is a result-oriented political hack ideologue that can be controlled.

There is going to be an "inevitable fight" regardless of the nominee, for Bush is not going to appoint a moderate. The question is who would be least susceptible to that fight. And that is why I am still predicting that Owen will get the nod. This might be counterintuitive given the controversy over getting Owen on the 5th Circuit. However, that is precisely why I am staying with my prediction. The big issue in the upcoming "inevitable fight" is whether there will be the "unusual circumstances" needed for the Democrats to invoke a filibuster. Owen's nomination to the 5th Circuit was at the center of the flibuster/nuclear option controversy when the Senate reached its "compromise" agreement (from which the Democrats basically got nothing and rolled over and allowed three highly controversial judges to be confirmed). If Owen is appointed, the Republicans can say "Well, Democrats, you willingly and knowingly allowed Owen to be confirmed just a few weeks ago, so you cannot filibuster her now. You gave up your right to complain about her." That is an easy argument to make, and it carries a lot of common sense with it.

There is another element to the "inevitable fight" factor. As I said in I can't keep up...,

These clowns have done so many things that are questionable at best and positively stupid at worst, and always there are several controversies going on at once. There has not been a "break in the action." The mistakes and controversies have been a continuous stream. For a time I could find absolutely no rational explanation for this pattern, but I have since come up with a theory...

I submit that this conduct is intentional and planned. See, if there are numerous problems at a given time, it is difficult for anyone to stay focused on any one problem. As soon as one problem starts receiving high scrutiny, along comes another one to take attention away from the first one. And then the Bush administration can turn its efforts back to the first problem or another matter altogether. In effect, the process becomes a shell game or a hand of three-card monte, with the primary objective being to make it impossible for anyone to keep an eye on the pea or winning card. The secondary objective is to get everyone so caught up in the chase (the effort to find the pea or winning card) that they lose sight of everything else. This process then gives the Bush adminstration flexibility in which to conduct all its massive bullshit.

The Bush administration is currently facing its biggest political challenge with the Plame affair and Karl Rove's involvement therein. The administration does not want a lack of controversy regarding the Supreme Court appointment. It wants a great deal of controversy because that will take the spotlight off Rove. By appointing Owen, Bush gets that controversy--along with an argument (see above) that will keep the controversy going and possibly result in getting Owen on the Supreme Court.

UPDATE: I forgot to mention that (as reported by MSNBC) Clement has previously said that the Supreme Court "has clearly held that the right to privacy guaranteed by the Constitution includes the right to have an abortion" and that "the law is settled in that regard." That could really enrage the winger base. By contrast, Owen and Jones are strongly anti-abortion. I just saw a law professor on MSNBC point out that Clement made that statement as a trial judge. His point is that trial judges have to follow the law, they do not get to make any law. That is done by appellate court judges, and as a member of the Supreme Court, Clement could then take a different position without really flip-flopping.

UPDATE 2: Although I am sticking with my prediction of Owen, I also have to say that I hope I am wrong. I would much rather see either Clement or Jones--or damn near anyone else--get the appointment

Josh Marshall explains Rove and his Republican apologists

Josh Marshall has posted a cogent--and damn accurate--assessment of Rove's transgressions and the big steaming crap pile of excuses the GOP is spouting in his defense. There is no point in trying to restate it, summarize it, or improve it. The post begins with "There's a point that's probably worth raising..." Read it here.

SERIOUSLY--READ IT.

And if there are any Republicans out there that have some substantive responses to Josh's points, feel free to share them.

I ain't holdin' my breath...

Supreme Court update--I might be right after all

In an interview on yesterday's Today show, Laura Bush was interviewed by Ann Curry, and the topic of the Supreme Court was addressed:

CURRY: Let me shift for a moment to a subject that a lot of Americans care a lot about, and that is what will happen in the wake of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor retiring. Do you want your husband to name another woman to the Supreme Court?

BUSH: Sure, I would really like for him to name another woman. And I admire and respect Sandra Day O'Connor so much. She's been a friend that I've loved seeing whenever I had the chance when I'm in Washington.

(emphasis added). And this is another reason why I am still staying with my prediction of Priscilla Owen getting the appointment.

Karl Rove is a complete reprobate, and he isn't going anywhere.

Putting a face to the definition

From Dictionary.com:

rep·ro·bate
n.

1. A morally unprincipled person.
2. One who is predestined to damnation.

All that is missing is this:
Let's look at the events of the last three days...

On Sunday, Newsweek published online an article printed in the July 18 issue. The article--by Michael Isikoff--disclosed that the secret source used by Time's Matt Cooper in the outing of Valerie Plame was none other than...Karl Rove. Now I know what some of you are thinking. This is the same Newsweek reporter whose article about flushing the Koran down the toilet was retracted by Newsweek in shame, so how in the world can this latest article have any credibility?

This time Isikoff obtained documentation establishing Rove's involvement, and it came not from an anonymous source, but from Time and Cooper in the form of an email. Here is Isikoff's description of the email:

"Subject: Rove/P&C," (for personal and confidential), Cooper began. "Spoke to Rove on double super secret background for about two mins before he went on vacation ..." Cooper proceeded to spell out some guidance on a story that was beginning to roil Washington. He finished, "please don't source this to rove or even WH [White House]" and suggested another reporter check with the CIA.

*******

Cooper wrote that Rove offered him a "big warning" not to "get too far out on Wilson." Rove told Cooper that Wilson's trip had not been authorized by "DCIA"—CIA Director George Tenet—or Vice President Dick Cheney. Rather, "it was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip." Wilson's wife is Plame, then an undercover agent working as an analyst in the CIA's Directorate of Operations counterproliferation division.

(emphasis added). Now I know what some of you are thinking. How do we know this email is in any way accurate? Well, Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, told Newsweek that Rove had indeed spoken to Cooper about Joseph Wilson and his wife (Valerie Plame).

A Monday article from the Washington Post had more comments from Rove's lawyer.

Luskin said yesterday that Rove did not know Plame's name and was not actively trying to push the information into the public realm.

*******

"Rove did not mention her name to Cooper," Luskin said. "This was not an effort to encourage Time to disclose her identity. What he was doing was discouraging Time from perpetuating some statements that had been made publicly and weren't true."

Let me see if I understand...Rove's position is that he did nothing wrong because he did not mention Plame's name but instead only said "Wilson's wife"? To quote John McEnroe, "You cannot be serious!" I bet Rove has a particularly creative definition of "is" as well.

Over the last two days, the White House has basically refused to issue any comment about Rove's involvement in the Plame affair. Scotty McClellan has exceeded his own extreme level of bullshit, but a full explanation of that requires its own post. Until then, here are some highlights from Tuesday's Washington Post:

It was journalists' first chance to grill McClellan on camera since coming to the conclusion that he had misled them 18 months ago when he said President Bush's top political aide, Karl Rove, had nothing to do with the unmasking of a CIA operative. The recipients of McClellan's bum steer were furious -- hectoring him more than questioning him.

"This is ridiculous!"

"You're in a bad spot here, Scott."

"Have you consulted a personal attorney?"

The 32-minute pummeling was perhaps the worst McClellan received since he got the job two years ago. His eyes were red and tired. He wiggled his foot nervously behind the lectern and robotically refused to answer no fewer than 35 questions about Rove and the outing of the CIA's Valerie Plame. Twenty-two times McClellan repeated that an "ongoing" investigation prevented him from explaining the gap between his past statements and the facts.

*******

The Associated Press's Terry Hunt led off. "Does the president stand by his pledge to fire anyone involved in the leak of a name of a CIA operative?"

McClellan, wearing a gray suit and heavy makeup, delivered the first of many demurrals. "While that investigation is ongoing, the White House is not going to comment," he said.

Hunt, expecting this, pressed: "I wasn't actually talking about any investigation."

"Yes," McClellan allowed, "but this question is coming up in the context of this ongoing investigation."

McClellan delivered a nearly verbatim response to CBS's John Roberts, so NBC's David Gregory tried to provoke him, asking: "Did Karl Rove commit a crime?"

"This is a question relating to an ongoing investigation," a pained McClellan repeated. After dodging some follow-up questions, he tried to quiet Gregory by saying, "Let me finish."

Gregory almost shouted back: "No, you're not finishing. You're not saying anything."

To be fair, Scotty never really says anything. What is surprising is that it took the Washington press corps this long to go after this putz.

And let's not forget about The Man himself. As the AP reported today, "Bush did not respond to a reporter's question Tuesday about whether he would fire Rove, in keeping with a June 2004 pledge to dismiss any leakers of Valerie Plame's identity." And that's a good way to segue to the next section...

History is so historical.

Everything in the previous section is significant because of what the Bush administration has said in the past. Here's a chronological sampling:

• Press Briefing by Scott McClellan: September 16, 2003

Q: On the Robert Novak-Joseph Wilson situation, Novak reported earlier this year -- quoting -- "anonymous government sources" telling him that Wilson's wife was a CIA operative. Now, this is apparently a federal offense, to burn the cover a CIA operative. Wilson now believes that the person who did this was Karl Rove. He's quoted from a speech last month as saying, "At the end of the day, it's of keen interest to me to see whether or not we can get Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs." Did Karl Rove tell that --

MR. McCLELLAN: I haven't heard that. That's just totally ridiculous. But we've already addressed this issue. If I could find out who anonymous people were, I would. I just said, it's totally ridiculous.

Q; But did Karl Rove do it?

MR. McCLELLAN: I said, it's totally ridiculous.

• Press Briefing by Scott McClellan: September 29, 2003

Q: All right. Let me just follow up. You said this morning, "The President knows" that Karl Rove wasn't involved. How does he know that?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I've made it very clear that it was a ridiculous suggestion in the first place. I saw some comments this morning from the person who made that suggestion, backing away from that. And I said it is simply not true. So, I mean, it's public knowledge. I've said that it's not true. And I have spoken with Karl Rove --

Q: But how does --

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not going to get into conversations that the President has with advisors or staff or anything of that nature; that's not my practice.

Q: But the President has a factual basis for knowing that Karl Rove --

MR. McCLELLAN: I said it publicly. I said that --

Q: But I'm not asking what you said, I'm asking if the President has a factual basis for saying -- for your statement that he knows Karl Rove --

MR. McCLELLAN: He's aware of what I've said, that there is simply no truth to that suggestion. And I have spoken with Karl about it.

• President Discusses Job Creation With Business Leaders: September 30, 2003

Q: Do you think that the Justice Department can conduct an impartial investigation, considering the political ramifications of the CIA leak, and why wouldn't a special counsel be better?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Let me just say something about leaks in Washington. There are too many leaks of classified information in Washington. There's leaks at the executive branch; there's leaks in the legislative branch. There's just too many leaks. And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of.

• Press Briefing by Scott McClellan: October 1, 2003

Q: You have said previously from the podium that these types of accusations against Karl are "ridiculous."

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes.

*******

MR. McCLELLAN: Let me make it very clear. As I said previously, he was not involved, and that allegation is not true in terms of leaking classified information, nor would he condone it. So let me be very clear. But I'm not going to -- we're not going to go down every single allegation that someone makes. That's just -- we can do that all day long. Let's stay focused on what the issue is here.

• President Bush, Kenyan President Kibaki Discuss State Visit: October 6, 2003

PRESIDENT BUSH: And, you know, there's a lot of leaking in Washington, D.C. It's a town famous for it. And if this helps stop leaks of -- this investigation in finding the truth, it will not only hold someone to account who should not have leaked -- and this is a serious charge, by the way. We're talking about a criminal action, but also hopefully will help set a clear signal we expect other leaks to stop, as well. And so I look forward to finding the truth.

• Press Briefing by Scott McClellan: October 6, 2003

Q: Scott, the President just expressed his desire to get to the bottom of this CIA leak issue. And he said he wanted to hold accountable whoever was responsible --

MR. McCLELLAN: Absolutely.

Q: -- responsible for this. But can you confirm that the President would fire anyone on his staff found to have leaked classified information?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think I made that very clear last week. The topic came up, and I said that if anyone in this administration was responsible for the leaking of classified information, they would no longer work in this administration.

• And lastly, a word from the Reprobate: August 31, 2004 (about half way in the transcript)
  

On August 31, 2004, Rove was interviewed on CNN, and when asked about the Plame matter, he answered, "I didn't know her name and didn't leak her name." No, you just said "Wilson's wife."

What an asshole.

And what is Bush going to do about this?

Not a damn thing, that's what. As I have said repeatedly, Bush places the highest possible value on loyalty. Not only has Rove been loyal to Bush, Bush owes everything to Rove. Bush is not going to get rid of Rove.

Marshall Wittman of Bull Moose posted a further explanation of this reality:

As I wrote in my blog this morning, for Bush to get rid of Rove would be like Charlie McCarthy firing Edgar Bergen.

Rove is to this Bush what Lee Atwater was to the father, except more so. He actually created W as a candidate for Governor and then for President.

*******

Rove is the nerve center of today's Republican Party. The White House is already lowering the bar for punishment in the Plame case. Unless, the prosecutor has the goods on Karl, he stays. The President and the GOP has no choice. Rove is the closest in Washington to the indispensable man.

It does not matter what Rove does. Rove has for all intents and purposes lied about his involvement in outing Valerie Plame, and yet Bush has done nothing except say that he still has confidence in Rove. Bush is not going to get rid of Rove. The only way to get rid of Rove is for the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, to charge his sorry ass with something--and even that might not do it.

More on a lack of planning from Larry Diamond, via Praktike

For those of you who might have missed it, back on June 15 I published a post entitled Recent info on a lack of planning in Iraq which discussed an interview with Larry Diamond on "The Daily Show." For info on Diamond and his book, Squandered Victory : The American Occupation and the Bungled Effort to Bring Democracy to Iraq, go back and read that post. For the sake of convenience, here is a repeat of some of the interview:

STEWART: In your mind–because you talk about how you respect the people that are working in Iraq day in and day out–is this a situation with Washington just not being responsive to the real problems on the ground and the situations there?

DIAMOND: Washington was not responsive before we went to war or after we went to war to the need for adequate resources to see this mission through.

STEWART: But during the six weeks of war...

DIAMOND: Hey, that was great. We won the victory in the war, and we squandered it after the war because of the lack of commitment of resources and knowledge.

(emphasis added). I have not read Diamond's book because I already have enough outrage over the lack of planning, but Praktike (who I have cited before) has done what I could not bear to do, and recently described the experience:

I just picked up a copy of Larry Diamond's new book, Squandered Victory, at the AUC bookstore. So far I've wanted to hurl it at the wall at least five times--not because I don't like the book, but because the anecdotes Diamond relates are so frustrating. I've only read the first four chapters, but those are packed with observations and anecdotes that I haven't seen elsewhere. Highly recommended.

One story that really got me was the tale of former ambassador to Yemen Barbara Bodine suggesting to Rumsfeld in March of 2003 that it would behoove the Bush administration to develop a plan to pay Iraqi civil servants. Rumsfeld replied that American taxpayers would never go for it and that he was not concerned if they were paid for several weeks or even months; if they rioted in the streets in protest, he said, the US could use such an eventuality as leverage to get the Europeans to pick up the tab.

Stunning, no?

Unfortunately, I have to say that this is not stunning. Three days ago, in Planning? We don't need no stinking planning, I said that my own lengthy posts do not come close to discussing all the planning failures, and Praktike has provided proof of that. And this latest example of Rumskull's rumskullery is not stunning because 1) it follows perfectly the pattern of blind stupidity I have exposed in my previous lengthy posts, and 2) as Robert Merry said (see Planning?), the idiots who brought us the Iraq war engaged in nothing but ideological planning--"you basically create the pattern that you want the world to be in and then you fit the policy to coincide with that particular pattern, even though it bore no relationship to reality." (emphasis added).

Nothing the Bush administration did in regard to planning for the post-war period had any relationship to reality or common sense. And because of the arrogance, stupidity, and delusion of these idiots (including but not limited to Rumskull, Cheney, Wolfowitless, Rice, Feith, Perle, and George his own self), we have a great big SNAFU that is FUBAR.

Bush, Gonzales, and some clueless winger pundits

Today's Dallas Morning News has the following quote in response to Bush's defense of Alberto Gonzales from Jonah Goldberg, editor at large for the National Review:

It's nice to defend your friends. But friendship isn't a qualification for the Supreme Court. And Bush should understand that.

This seems to have become a theme among right wing pundits, as evidenced by a recent column from the douchebag of freedom (phrase coined by Jon Stewart), Bob Novak:

The Founding Fathers put the Senate "advise and consent" clause into the Constitution partly to combat cronyism. In Federalist No. 76, Alexander Hamilton opposed the president's nominees "being in some way or other personally allied to him." Thus, the wonder in Washington is that a peeved Bush would defend Gonzales's selection on grounds of personal pique. So much is at stake in these Supreme Court nominations that surely the president must realize this situation transcends loyalty to a friend.

(emphasis added). Where have these boneheads been the last four years? Bush has shown time and again that friendship and loyalty transcend damn near everything for him. Why do you think so many Texans have prominent positions in the administration? Why do you think lots of people with direct ties to Enron ended up in Washington? Why do you think Rumskull and Wolfowitz did not get sacked? And on and on...

On another note, I am still trying to figure out why so many on the right are becoming anti-Gonzales? I'll say it again--Gonzales will do whatever Bush wants. If all the wingers have such blind faith in Bush, why are they so against Gonzales being on the Supreme Court? Perhaps it is a ruse. Many of these same pundits are saying that Gonzales is the best Democrats can hope for in terms of getting a moderate on the Court. That is a load of crap, and any Democrat who disagrees is an idiot.

Planning? We don't need no stinking planning.

The oh so many regular readers of this blog know that I have written a lot about the horrendous lack of planning for the the post-war period in Iraq. For anyone who has not been a regular reader of this blog, you can find links to most of my previous posts on post-war planning here. And, believe it or not, those lengthy posts do not come close to discussing all the issues.

This post will not finish the job, but it will present excerpts from a recent interview which sum up some of the major failings of Bush, Cheney, Rumskull, Wolfowitless, etc.

On July 8, 2005, Robert Merry was a guest on The Diane Rehm Show. Before discussing what Merry said in this interview, I will discuss Merry's background. According to this biography,

Mr. Merry was born March 5, 1946, in Tacoma, Washington. He received a bachelor’s degree in editorial journalism from the University of Washington, where he served as editor of the campus Daily and won two major awards for student journalism. Following three years in the Army, when he served as a language-qualified counterespionage agent in West Germany, he received a master’s degree from Columbia University‘s Graduate School of Journalism.

Mr. Merry began his career at the Denver Post, where he covered the Colorado Senate and local politics. After two years at the Post, he became a national political correspondent for the now-defunct National Observer, a Dow Jones newspaper. When it folded in 1977, Mr. Merry moved to the Washington bureau of The Wall Street Journal. During nine years at the Journal, Mr. Merry covered a wide range of subjects.

Merry went from the WSJ to Congressional Quarterly "in 1987 as Managing Editor and in 1990 was promoted to Executive Editor. He became President and Publisher in January 1997." For those of you not familiar with Congressional Quarterly, here is part of the magazine's mission statement:

Congressional Quarterly publishes world-class information and insight on government and politics. The company has built a reputation for accurate, comprehensive and nonpartisan reporting on more than 50 years of experience.

CQ has the largest news team covering Capitol Hill. More than 100 reporters, editors and researchers keep readers updated in print and online on a weekly, daily and real-time basis. CQ's readership includes 95 percent of the members of Congress, top academic and media outlets, and leaders in business, nonprofit organizations, government affairs and the executive branch.

The point here is that Merry cannot be accused of being Michael Moore or Paul Krugman or Al Franken.

And with that established, let's get to the interview. Merry has written a book, Sands of Empire : Missionary Zeal, American Foreign Policy, and the Hazards of Global Ambition. Iraq is discussed in the book, and it was discussed with Diane Rehm. Specifically, the topic of planning for the post-war period was discussed:

Q: But then, Bob, how do you explain the extraordinarily poor planning that went into their thinking before the war?

A: I think those may be among my most harsh passages in the entire book because I essentially say that the only explanation is it was ideological planning–you basically create the pattern that you want the world to be in and then you fit the policy to coincide with that particular pattern, even though it bore no relationship to reality.

Q: So you’re saying that basically they were building the war in Iraq not based on the reality of what this country had and could put forward to move into Iraq–not only to take down Saddam, but to reshape that entire society--and did so without fully planning how to do it.

A: I have a catalog of expressions on the part of these people, including the Vice President and Wolfowitz and many others in the administration, indicating that they really did not know what they were getting into. They didn’t understand the force of culture. They didn’t understand the sectarian nature of Iraq. They didn’t understand the history that we’re now grappling with. But it wasn’t very hard to find this history–books have been written, historical references were rampant in the period leading up to the Iraq war. They seemed to ignore all those things. If they had just gone back and looked at the experience of the British during the end of and after World War I. Winston Churchill, who was responsible for all this at the time, called Iraq “an ungrateful volcano.” I think that’s a very apt phrase–it applies to today.

(emphasis added). Does that seem a bit harsh? If you want some evidence to back up Merry's conclusions, check out my previous posts on the subject. You will see that the people ultimately responsible are Bush and Rumskull. At the very least, their abysmal failure in this regard constitutes criminal negligence, but that explanation will be made later.

Bush comes to Gonzales's defense again.

Today Bush was in Denmark, and a reporter asked him about the Supreme Court vacancy:

Q: What do you think of the criticism of Attorney General Gonzales as a potential nominee? And will there be a litmus test on abortion and gay marriage when you consider your choice?

PRESIDENT BUSH: Thanks. First of all, as I said during both of my campaigns, there will be no litmus test. I'll pick people who, one, can do the job, people who are honest, people who are bright, and people who will strictly interpret the Constitution and not use the bench to legislate from. That's what I campaigned on and that's what I want to do.

She's referring to the fact that my Attorney General, longtime friend, a guy who was my -- close when I was the governor of Texas, came up to Washington with me as part of the movement of Texans south to north during the government. He's been my lawyer in the White House; he's now the Attorney General; he's under -- he's being criticized. I don't like it when a friend gets criticized. I'm loyal to my friends. And all of a sudden this fellow, who is a good public servant and a really fine person, is under fire. And so, do I like it? No, I don't like it, at all.

(emphasis added). This is yet more evidence that loyalty is BIG for Bush. This is more evidence that a person's position on specific issues is low on the priority list. This is more evidence that Bush is leaning towards nominating Gonzales.

An update on handicapping the possible Supreme Court nominees

Even though she has hardly received any mention, I am still sticking with my prediction of May 19 that Priscilla Owen would be Bush's next Supreme Court appointee, but the previous post evaluated the chances of 11 who have been identified in the media as possible contenders. Of the 11, I concluded that Alberto Gonzales would be the most likely nominee.

Recent statements from ol' George provide support for my opinion on Gonzales and my opinion on what the single most important consideration will be.

On July 4, USA Today published an interview with Bush concerning the Supreme Court appointee, and Bush said,

I hope the language and tone of the debate is one that is uplifting. I would hope that the groups involved in this process--the special-interest groups--will help tone down the heated rhetoric and focus on the nominee's credentials and philosophy.

Now I know what some of you are thinking. Bush was only talking about the godless liberals that will attack anyone Bush nominates, right? In the words of Jon Stewart, "Not so much."

See, the religious right and other wingers object to Gonzales because of his positions on social issues like abortion and affirmative action. Shortly after the above statement, the following exchange regarding Gonzales took place:

Q: What do you make of the tone of the dialogue already and in particular the attacks on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who's considered a possible nominee?

A: My call to the senators who will be leading the debate on either side is to help elevate this rhetoric so that the country will take a prideful look at the process, recognize there will be differences of opinion but that we can step back after it's over and say, "That's the way we ought to conduct a debate on something as serious as a Supreme Court nominee."

Q: Do you think the attacks on Gonzales are out of line?

A: Al Gonzales is a great friend of mine. I'm the kind of person, when a friend gets attacked, I don't like it. We're lucky to have him as the attorney general, and I'm lucky to have him as a friend.

Bush's comments support my assertions that 1) loyalty is prized and rewarded by Bush, and 2) Gonzales scores very high on the Bush loyalty scale.

More importantly, Bush's comments support my claim that the top consideration for Bush is to appoint someone he can control (rather than picking a social conservative). When asked about the attacks on Gonzales--some of which have come from the right--Bush called on senators from both sides to elevate the debate, and then he defended Gonzales in no uncertain terms. Here is an indication that Bush is not at all concerned about positions on specific issues and that he is more concerned about loyalty and control.

However, it seems to me that Priscilla Owen presents the best of both worlds for Bush. She is vehemently anti-abortion, so Bush could appease the religious right and other "conservatives" by appointing Owen, and, as I explained in The Senate should reject Priscilla Owen, Owen owes Bush big time, meaning she could be controlled.

The one factor that still favors Gonzales is the "first" factor, but it remains to be seen if that is enough to land Gonzales the appointment.

Handicapping the possible Supreme Court nominees

As I noted in the previous post, the Washington Post has profiles on some of O'Connor's possible successors. Slate also has profiles with even more information. This post will refer to those profiles without setting all the information therein, so please read the profiles by using the links.

Overview of what Bush wants

• Bush wants a conservative.

More specifically, Bush wants a justice who is conservative on social and religious issues (gay marriage, abortion, Ten Commandments displays, etc.).

• Bush wants a result-oriented, activist judge.

Contrary to what he or anybody else might say, Bush wants an activist judge, for he wants a Supreme Court appointee to carry out the winger agenda, meaning he wants a result-oriented judge. "Result-oriented" means a judge that determines ahead of time what result is to be reached and then manipulates circumstances to make sure that result is in fact reached. In other words, the judge will ignore any facts, rules, or laws that run counter to the predetermined result. That, my friends is an activist judge.

• Bush wants someone he can control.

This is true of pretty much any appointee to any position. In a Preview of a post about the Bush agenda, I named five recent Bush appointees (four of whom were part of his first term administration) and noted that "That means that all five of the people named herein owe their positions to George W. Bush. In other words, they can all be controlled." To put it differently, Bush likes to put people in his administration who then owe him. Independent thinkers need not apply.

• Bush wants a "first."

Bush is big on making appointments that are "firsts." Condi Rice is the prime example--first woman to be National Security Adviser, first minority to be Secretary of State. Alberto Gonzales is the first Hispanic Attorney General. One of the objectives in appointing "firsts" is to deflect criticism of the appointee. Any criticism can be marginalized by shifting the focus from the substantive concerns to "but appointee X would be the first _______, and your criticism shows you are elitist or discriminatory," or some other bullshit. I will add that the next best thing to a "first" is a "replacement."

• Bush wants someone who will be on the Court for an extended time.

Bush wants as part of his legacy a substantially changed Supreme Court. In that way his influence will be felt for years after he leaves office. That means a younger--as opposed to older--appointee will likely be favored.

And the list of contestants is...

Here are the possible appointees profiled by Slate and the Washington Post:

• Emilio M. Garza, 57, former U.S. District Court judge, judge on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals since 1991.
• Alberto Gonzales, 49, former Texas Supreme Court Justice, current U.S. Attorney General.
• John Cornyn, 53, former Texas Supreme Court Justice and Texas Attorney General, current U.S. Senator for Texas.
• J. Michael Luttig, 51, former clerk for Scalia (on D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals) and Chief Justice Burger, judge on 4th Circuit Court of Appeals since 1991.
• Edith Brown Clement, 57, former U.S. District Court judge, judge on 5th Circuit Court of Appeals since 2001 (appointed by Bush).
• Samuel A. Alito, Jr., 55, judge on the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals since 1990.
• Michael W. McConnell, 50, former clerk for Justice William Brennan, former law professor, judge on 10th Circuit Court of Appeals since 2002 (appointed by Bush).
• John G. Roberts, 50, former clerk for Chief Justice Rehnquist, judge on D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals since 2003 (appointed by Bush).
• Theodore B. Olson, 64, former U.S. Solicitor General, represented Bush in Bush v. Gore--the case that put Bush in the White House.
• Larry D. Thompson, 59, former deputy Attorney General--the No. 2 person at the Justice Department--for much of Bush's first term, currently a senior vice president and general counsel for PepsiCo.
• J. Harvie Wilkinson, 61, former clerk for Justice Lewis Powell, former law professor, former No. 2 official in the Justice Department's Civil Rights Office from 1982-1983, judge on the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals since 1984.

As I said, the Slate and Washington Post articles contain a great deal more information about all of these people. Many of my comments below will not make much sense unless you read those articles.

Overview of analysis

What follows is not an exhaustive analysis. Based on all the circumstances, good arguments could be in favor of all of the possible nominees. I am not going to do that. Instead, I am going to eliminate from my list those that do not meet what I consider to be the most important. Here is the rank of those qualifications:

1) Bush wants someone he can control.
2) Bush wants a result-oriented, activist judge.
3) Bush wants a "first."
4) Bush wants someone who will be on the Court for an extended time.
5) Bush wants a conservative.

I will eliminate candidates as I go through the above qualifications. That means that I generally will not discuss other factors that favor those candidates. Thus, my analysis will not be exhaustive.

Those who cannot be sufficiently controlled because they have no ties to Bush

Three candidates have no ties to Bush in that they are not from Texas, were not appointed by Bush to any position, and have not been part of a Bush administration: Luttig, Alito, and Wilkinson.

Those with ties to Bush that cannot be sufficiently controlled

Garza is from Texas, but he was appointed to the federal bench by Bush's father.

Olson certainly has close ties to Bush, but Olson does not owe Bush anything. Indeed, Bush owes everything to Olson.

McConnell was appointed to his current post by Bush, but McConnell is too much of wild card and free thinker to be controlled.

Those with ties to Bush who might be sufficiently controlled

Clement was appointed to the 5th Circuit by Bush, and Roberts was appointed by Bush to the D.C. Circuit. However, they have no other ties to Bush and no ties to Texas.

Thompson's only government position came through Bush, so perhaps he could be controlled by Bush. However, Thompson has never been a judge at any level, meaning there is no way he stands a prayer of getting on the highest court in the nation.

That leaves Cornyn and Gonzales. Cornyn was a state district judge for six years and on the Texas Supreme Court for seven. He was elected to both posts, as he was to Texas Attorney General, meaning he owes nothing to Bush for his state positions. Likewise, he was elected on his own to the Senate. Given my previous analysis, these facts would indicate that Cornyn could not be controlled by Bush. However, Cornyn has changed over the years. As a Texas Supreme Court Justice, he went from really trying to follow and apply the law to trying to implement the Republican agenda. He did the same as Attorney General, particularly in his role on state legislative redistricting. Since joining the Senate, he has been one of Bush's biggest supporters (particularly regarding judicial nominees). Cornyn is very ambitious, and if he has to toe the party line to get what he wants, he will. And that means he is capable of being controlled by Bush. Also, Cornyn has shown strong loyalty to Bush, and Bush is very big on rewarding such loyalty (which is another way to exert control).

However, Gonzales is far more likely to be controlled by Bush. As I explained in Example #1 of the Bush Agenda, Gonzales owes his entire political career to Bush. Moreover, Gonzales outscores Cornyn on the loyalty scale.

Thus, for me, Gonzales has the edge on the control factor, with Cornyn right behind.

Who will be result-oriented and activist?

Cornyn was turning towards being such a judge toward the end of his service on the Texas Supreme Court, and given his unwavering support of Bush as a Senator, Cornyn could very well be result-oriented and activist.

However, there is no doubt in my mind that Gonzales would be result-oriented and activist. His role in the Partiot Act and the prisoner memos establishes that.

Although I feel the control factor is far and away the most important, this factor is also very important, so I will discuss some of the other candidates. McConnell is a highly respected (even by liberals) academic, meaning he is actually interested in the law rather than just accomplishing an agenda regardless of what the law says. Any judge who is result-oriented and activist cannot have any centrist qualities, which leaves out Wilkinson, whose mentor and role model was Lewis Powell (who is my favorite Supreme Court Justice). Garza, Luttig, and Alito seem to have been consistent in their philosphies over the years, and at this point they do not seem to be result-oriented. I have yet to see enough about Clement to know whether she is or could be result-oriented. The same goes for Roberts, Olson, and Thompson.

I must say that it is possible for someone to suddenly become result-oriented and activist. If one can be controlled, past history could be irrelevant. Also, once a judge makes it to the Supremes, he or she does not have to answer to anybody, and that lack of restraint could unleash a person's result-oriented side to come out.

Who would be a "first"?

Garza and Gonzales would be the true "firsts" as the first Hispanic on the Supreme Court. Gonzales is way ahead on the first two factors and has a very close relationship with Bush. Advantage Gonzales.

The next best thing to a "first" would be a "replacement," and Clement would do nicely as a replacement for a female justice, but that would not be as good as a "first," and Clement does not have the close ties to Bush that Gonzales has.

Who would serve for an extended time?

Obviously, the age factor comes into play here. Wilkinson and Olson are both over 60, so they're out. Thompson is 59, and Garza and Clement are 57. I think those three are out.

Alito is 55. He is on the borderline.

Of those remaining, Cornyn is the oldest at 53, and Gonzales is the youngest at 49. Again, advantage Gonzales.

Who is the most conservative?

Who cares? Truly, this is the least important factor. If someone is conservative, but does not believe in judicial activism, he or she will not meet Bush's desires. If someone is conservative, but cannot be controlled, he or she might base decisions on principle rather than on the political agenda. On the other hand, if someone can be controlled and believes in result-oriented judicial activism, philosophy does not matter.

In many ways, Bush would be well advised not to appoint someone is a real winger on social issues in order to minimize opposition from the Democrats. However, Bush thinks he is bulletproof, and he might receive so much pressure from various winger groups that he will appoint some extremist.

Final Analysis

My analysis points toward Gonzales and then Cornyn. Of those two, I could live with Cornyn. He at one time was an outstanding judge, and he actually did some really good things as Texas Attorney General. There is a chance he could be like he once was. Cornyn would be a tough target for the opposition.

However, Bush has continually done increasingly contentious things in his appointments--such as Priscilla Owen, Wolfowitless, and John Bolton. Given that Gonzales best meets all of the criteria discussed above, my guess is that--in spite of the controversy and opposition it would produce--of all the people listed in Slate and the Washington Post, Gonzales would get the nod.

Still, I think there is somebody else out there that meets all of the criteria as well...and that is Priscilla Owen. Given Bush's penchant for doing the truly incredible, I am going to stick with my original call that unless Rehnquist retired first, Bush would try to fill the first Supreme Court vacancy with Priscilla Owen.

Perhaps I will explain this further in a later post.

O'Connor resigns--frenzy to follow

I have to admit I did not see this one coming. I did not expect any Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court to resign for at least two more years. O'Connor's resignation causes me great concern.

I have long respected and admired Justice O'Connor, particularly as she developed into one of the major swing votes on the Court. The only real criticism I have of her is her role in the heinous Bush v. Gore decision. At least her last opinion was a good one to go out on. She wrote the dissent in the recent case which gives municipalities the right to take private property for economic development purposes. That decision warrants a separate post, but for now suffice it to say that in my opinion, Bush v. Gore is the only decision in my lifetime that is worse.

My view of the U.S. Supreme Court as an institution is that it should not be dominated by one group. There must be a balance of some sort. For instance, three conservatives, three liberals, and three that are somewhere in the middle constitutes a balance. O'Connor became one of the voices in the middle, and what concerns me--and scares me--is that Bush has no interest in appointing someone in the middle. He is not at all interested in maintining any kind of balance. He wants someone who will carry out the winger agenda, and that is a bad thing. See, if Scalia had resigned, I would not have a problem with Bush appointing someone like Scalia. As much as I dislike him as a judge (and boy, do I ever), Scalia nonetheless fulfills an important role on the Court as a balance to the sure enough liberals. Thus, I would like to see O'Connor replaced by someone closer to the center, but I have little hope Bush will do that.

I said in The Senate should reject Priscilla Owen that

I guarantee that if Owen gets confirmed to the Fifth Circuit, and a place on the Supreme Court opens up while Bush is still in office, Priscilla Owen will be nominated for that position (unless Rehnquist retires, in which case Scalia will precede Owen).

The timing of O'Connor's resignation could render the above opinion incorrect. It seems inconceivable that Bush would appoint Owen to the Supremes before she has served on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, but it could happen. She is exactly what Bush wants on the Supreme Court.

Today's Washington Post has profiles on some of O'Connor's possible successors. I will write a separate post of analysis on those persons, but for now I note that three of them are from Texas, and that gives them a big edge. Two of them are Hispanic, which gives them a further edge. Owen is not mentioned, but she is still a possibility...

And this does not even address all the political mayhem that is to come--filibusters, nuclear option, etc. This is going to get ugly, but we will see once and for all if the Democrats as a party have any cajones.