Whomever Bush nominates for the Supreme Court you can count on three things:
1.) The nominee will be of a minority group or a woman or both.
2.) She or he will have an appealing personal story.
3.) He or she will have a well-known record of asserting wacko Conservatron ideology from the bench, but this will be advertised as “strict constructionalism.”
The below post argues that Bush will try to either undo Roe or the New Deal with his choice. I disagree. He will try to do both. The Consrvatrons and their media will attempt to make this a personal Horatio Alger story in which the nominee is denied fulfillment of hir (It’s just too fun to not use Leary’s gender-neutral pronoun here) self-actualization by a bunch of no-good obstructionist Democrats. This gels with their ‘06 election theme. Of course, all of this nonsense will allow for as little popular examination of hir record as possible.
The talking points can almost be in Mad Lib form:
[Nominee] grew up in [backwater], [verb]ing [number] hours-a-day to take care of mommy and pappy who were [adjective] and had [ailment]. Some days the only thing they had to eat were [adjective] [food] and [adjective] [food]. [Nominee] had to [verb] the [food] just to make it [adjective]. Now those [fnord] Democrats won’t accept [Nominee’s] account of how [Nominee’s] [adjective] addiction was immediately cured by [deity] as justification for putting the Bill of Rights up for a binding vote of the Republican caucus. They hate [deity] and [country] but love [fnord] do-gooders and their [adjective], limp-wrist “rights”.
A bit hyperbolic perhaps, but assuming that Bush nominates a mediocre troglodyte with views that most Americans find abhorrent this will be the Democrats’ third big chance. As a whole (but to be fair, not all of them) they blew the first two by not standing up against the absurd Schiavo intervention and not voting en masse against the venal Bankruptcy bill. A Supreme Court nomination is a high-profile enough fight that a solid “No” to a horrible candidate will score them enough memorable points that perhaps – assuming the other justices keep on eating their spinach, blueberries, and wild salmon and hang on for another three years – a Democrat will be in a position to name the next judge even if Justice Tojo “The Messiah” Franco gets confirmed this time.