Bush has said that Scalia and Thomas are the standard of successful nominations. Out of two nominations P41 only named one such; even the sainted Ronald Reagan only named one out of three. Bush has surpassed his father by winning reelection to a second term. But now Bush has his second nomination to SCOTUS, and he doesn't know that he will have a third one. Bush knows that he will suffer in comparison with his father if neither Roberts nor Miers were to pan out like Thomas, and that he will have bragging rights if they both do.
And I think that that's the way to bet 'em.
It's infuriating that, with 55 Republican senators, Bush can't openly name a Scalia the way Reagan was able to - but that's the senators' fault, not Bush's. We can hope to improve the Senate in '06, even if we lose a RINO or two while picking up a couple of red-state senate seats.
What this train of thought is missing is a cogent explanation of why I should wager the staffing of the high court on some family's father-son dynamics. It may, in fact, be what I have to do, but given the depth of the constuctionist bench developed over the course of the last few decades, this is apologetics, pure and simple.
I keep reading that there is a pretty deep bench of well-qualified conservative jurists. Why not send one up and if he or she is not approved, send another one...and another one?
I think this nomination, after his explicit promise to seek Salia and Thomas-like nominees, is equivalent to his father's broken promise on "no new taxes." I'm amazed he did not expect the reaction he's getting.
It's infuriating that, with 55 Republican senators, Bush can't openly name a Scalia the way Reagan was able to - but that's the senators' fault, not Bush's.