Hail To The (New) Chief

....And his name will be John Roberts:

President Bush on Monday nominated John Roberts to succeed William H. Rehnquist as chief justice, and called on the Senate to confirm him before the Supreme Court opens its fall term on October 3.

"I am honored and humbled by the confidence the president has shown in me," Roberts said, standing alongside Bush in the Oval Office. "I am very much aware that if I am confirmed I would succeed a man I deeply respect and admire, a man who has been very kind to me for 25 years."

"He's a man of integrity and fairness and throughout his life he's inspired the respect and loyalty of others," Bush said. "John Roberts built a record of excellence and achievement and reputation for goodwill and decency toward others. in his extraordinary career."

George W. Bush has a real problem with self-promotion. But one of the effects of that lack is that even his supporters tend to forget the singular brilliance of which this man is capable. Looking back now on his choice of Judge Roberts for the SCOTUS in close proximity to the late Chief Justice Rehnquist's infirmity, it makes me kick myself for not seeing this possibility, and admire Bush that much more that he did.

What has the consensus read on Judge Roberts been? That he was "another Rehnquist." He clerked for the Chief Justice and he had a great deal in common, in terms of both judicial philosophy, personality, and character with his mentor. Surely he would be Rehnquist's symbolic successor on the High Court.

But now we see that the President was preparing for that succession to be far more than just symbolic. His selection of Judge Roberts was made with the CJ's infirmity squarely in mind, so that if Rehnquist either passed away or was physically incapacitated (he was never going to retire), he would be prepared with a nominee that was already announced, vetted, and universally acknowledged as qualified.

It also avoids the following unpleasant spectre:

Getting a new chief justice of Bush's choosing in place quickly also avoids the scenario of having liberal Justice John Paul Stevens making the decisions about whom to assign cases to and making other decisions that could influence court deliberations. As the court's senior justice, Stevens would take over Rehnquist's administrative duties until a new chief is confirmed.

It also averts an arguably needless additional Senate fight over the elevation of either Justice Scalia or Thomas to the Chief's post, as well as an intra-GOP clash over the elevation of an airheaded turncoat like Justice Kennedy.

There is, though, a caveat to be raised as a counterpoint: that the President, in selecting Judge Roberts to ostensibly replace Justice O'Connor, was really picking him to succeed Chief Justice Rehnquist, whether or not he died this soon. Yeah, that sounds redundant, but permit me to explain.

One of the things that so relieved and cheered conservatives - well, most of us, anyway - about the Roberts pick was that it showed that GDub wasn't letting himself be bound by the notion of the O'Connor seat having to be filled with another "moderate" and/or another woman. Just as Bill Clinton replaced the center-right Byron White with the ultraleft Ruth Buzzy Ginsberg in 1993, so his successor was replacing a center-left female with a staunchly conservative male.

However, if the Bush blueprint was to replace Rehnquist with Roberts, even if the picks and resignations didn't occur in that order, that suggests the possibility that the President, now that he's scooted Roberts over to the Chief Justice slot, may proceed to replace Justice O'Connor with another female jurist of the exact same type. And wasn't Edith Clement the runner-up to Roberts last time?

The eternally optimistic Hugh Hewitt doesn't think so:

Anyone who expects the President to nominate a "moderate" in order to appease liberals doesn't understand the President or liberals. He won't do it and it wouldn't satisfy them anyway. Consider the absurd attacks launched on the President all last week. A political opposition so full of bile would find a way to condem the nomination reincarnation of William Brennan.

I wouldn't go so far as to "expect" the President to nominate a moderate. Hugh makes a great case for Michael Luttig, the additional selling factor being that he and JR are "old and close friends" who would raise the intellectual and integrity level of the Court and make each other and the other justices better. And if the decision was made that some concessions had to be made to the identity politics bean-counters, Emilio Garza and Edith Jones (and Janice Rogers Brown, who would be "two for the price of one") would be outstanding alternatives.

But you have to admit that from a purely pragmatic standpoint, a Clement choice would make life at least nominally easier for the White House, at least on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, and in the short term. Switching Judge Roberts to Chief Justice helps pave the way for his quick confirmation, and if the Left was having trouble ginning up convincing anti-Roberts smears, what could they say about O'Connor-ian Judge Clement (or Alberto Gonzales - remember him?), and why would they?

The solace I think we on the Right can take is that just as the President was foresightful in nominating Judge Roberts, so he is likely to be foresightful in the longer-term effects of stiffing his base with a squish for his second SCOTUS pick. That would be the surest route, short of inviting Osama bin Laden to a summit meeting at the White House, to a 2006 mid-term election disaster for the GOP.

Brother Hinderaker suggests that Bush appointing another conservative will set off "World War III." But isn't that what a lot of people said about Judge Roberts' nomination?

I've gotta go with Double-H on this one:

One of the great advantages of extremism is that it makes negotiating with its followers as irrelevant an exercise as trying to understand their "logic." As long as the Democratic Party allows itself to be guided by extremists, it commits itself to the margins of American political life.