A few comments:
1. The Democrats will give Bush a "pass" on replacing Chief Justice Renquist (because replacing one conservative with another will not change the composition of the court). Bush will use this opportunity to name a seasoned jurist, of the white male persuasion.
2. The Democrats will fight tooth and nail to prevent Bush from replacing any of the liberals on the court with a conservative. This is when Bush will nominate an Hispanic to the U.S. Supreme Court, and make the Democrats go into apopelexy as to whether they will try to fillibuster the nomination (which will be demanded by the hard-left) or hurt themselves with our country's fastest growing ethnic minority group.
3. Senator Kyl is a good guy, but until Arizona elects a Republican governor, he will not be appointed to the Supreme Court. Senator Cornyn, on the other hand, comes from a state with a Republican Governor. Plus, he was state Attorney General before being elected to the U.S. Senate. If, by chance, a second opportunity opens up where Bush can replace a liberal with a conservative, I think the nomination of a U.S. Senator might be a nice way to bypass a fillibuster attempt.
4. With regard to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, if the two Democratic Senators from California want to "blue card" nominees from their state, so be it. President Bush can nominate non-Californians. Currently, the 9th Circuit is 2-to-1 dominated by Democrat-appointees. Every other circuit is either roughly balanced, or decidedly tilted to Republican-nominees. This is why the 9th Circuit is routinely overturned by the Supreme Court. It is a rogue Circuit, whose ways have become unsound. If we can't restrain its judicial activism through the course of appointments, we may have to consider other options.