Replacing O'Connor: Opening Arguments

With Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's retirement, the summer and fall of 2005 promises to be one of partisan contention centered around who President Bush selects to be her replacement. Though, this does not necessarily mean that a filibuster will be called.

Majority leader Bill Frist is scheduled to hold a senators-only conference call this afternoon to discuss the Supreme Court vacancy. One of the issues to be covered will be when to hold hearings on the nominee, assuming that President Bush chooses someone shortly after his return from the G-8 Summit. The Senate, which is now leaving for its July 4 recess, is scheduled to go on its August recess by the first week of August, and will not to return until September 6. "If we get a nominee delivered to us on July 11, when we get back [from the current break]," asks one Republican, "do we hold hearings in August? Do we gain anything by not waiting for two more weeks?"

So far, there is no consensus on the answer to that question. Right now, top Republicans in the Senate do not believe Democrats will filibuster a Supreme Court nominee -- "They won't filibuster," one well-placed source said flatly yesterday -- but the GOP leadership does believe Democrats will do everything in their power to drag out the confirmation process. Holding hearings in August would simply get the process going sooner rather than later. In any event, Republicans believe that the aftermath of the nuclear/constitutional/Byrd option fight has left the GOP, in the words of the well-placed source, "maximally positioned" to conduct a Supreme Court fight.

We'll see soon, but I have my doubts that the Democrats will be able to refrain from taking a political stand if pressured from their base to do so. Speaking of which, lefty-mag Slate has put up its list of potential successors and conservatives are abuzz (or afear) about the possibilities.

Bush could wind up naming Gonzales to replace O'Connor relatively quickly. Then Rehnquist resigns. Then the president names a McConnell/Luttig/Roberts/etc. The second nominee softens the blow of the Gonzales nomination on the Right. The Left will be more ready to accept the conservative because the president ticked off conservatives with Gonzales.

Some problems with that scenario: It assumes a lot about the Left. First, the Senate Dems refer to Gonzales as The Torture Memo Guy. Who says he's going to be an easy confirmation ride? And, despite the joy they'll get from the president dissing his peeps (which I, naive K-Lo, think my Stud W would never do anyway), who really thinks that will translate into the Left cooperating on not just one but two nominees? You do realize how much mo and money Ralph Neas and co. have riding on this, right?

And — I could be wrong — but I just don't think the people who are really making these decisions in the White House don't see the recusal problem with Gonzales as a conversation stopper. He's just not a practical prospect as a judge — a "half justice" as we've talked about here.

Others are giving early warnings as to the method that will be used to torpedo any of the President's nominees (including this commercial), while Republican Sen. John Cornyn offers his own advice as to what kind of nominee he'd find acceptable. The next few months will be very interesting.