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.