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