"But there are very good signs that she is exactly what we've been waiting for. The President's track record is extremely good on judicial appointments, and he has proven to be trustworthy...........he means what he says. He has consistently said that he wants Originalists on the courts, and that's exactly what he has done up to this point."
But the Supremes are different, because they really have power, specifically the power to overturn Roe v. Wade.
We saw very, very clearly with the massive political defection of the business Right in the Schiavo case that the financial right does NOT want to see significant restrictions on civil liberties concerning abortion and right-to-die issues.
Bush could throw red meat to the social conservatives forever on district and appellate court nominations. But the Supremes are the Big Enchilada, and here, if he explicitly names an outspoken strict constructionist who will clearly overturn Roe, he will lose the business class, the "Bloomberg Republicans" who are the moneymen of the party. THEY do not want to see Roe overturned. They are pro-choice. Bush cannot outright name strict constructionists who will clearly overturn Roe. If he does, he will have chosen the social conservatives and rejected the Northeastern, Chicago and California business conservatives. In the Schiavo case they made it explicit that they would consider withdrawing their support if the Republicans persisted in following the "religious fanatics".
That's the needle Bush has to thread.
He's got to put folks up there who are putatively or colorably socially conservative ENOUGH so that the social conservatives will adopt a "wait and see" attitude (with sufficient prodding from the Republican establishment social conservatives such as James Dobson, who simply have too much to lose if the social conservative support for the Republican party dries up), but the money Republicans will understand that the fix is in. Abortion probably won't come before the court until after 2008, and that bridge will be crossed when it comes. By then, of course, the party can effect outrage at the "Souters on the court" who "drift left".
So, that's the game.
And Bush has to thread a needle.
Both pro-choice money conservatives, and pro-life social conservatives have to believe that, ultimately, the fix is in. The money conservatives have to believe that these folks are moderates who will trend center and preserve Roe. The social conservatives have to trust Bush and rely on his choice for lesser judges (which, however, don't have the same power) as an indicator.
They're splitting the baby, and it's a careful operation.
The bottom line is that Roe cannot be overturned, but people cannot be chosen who will certainly not overturn Roe. They have to be colorably willing, perhaps, to overturn it, but able to "drift" once on the court.
And no committed arch-constructionist could be expected to do that. The money Republicans would defect by 2006 if Bush named Luttig.
That's the game.
There is one problem.
They're splitting the baby, and it's a careful operation.
America is the baby and this operation is never good for the baby. Ever.
Dr. Dobson is not "establishment." I believe that I heard him say that he voted for a minor candidate {not Henry Ross Perot} in the 1996 presidential general election. He rejected Dole, in other words.