Bush Picks Fight For Christmas

Again displaying his ignorance of the ancient idea of "bipartisanship" ([bye-part'-iz-un-ship] - last practiced by an American president in the previous century), Bush has decided to re-nominate to the federal judiciary the few radical extremists whose nominations were blocked in Bush's last term by Democrats who were unwilling to stand by while Bush hijacked the independence of our judiciary. At least the Dems did something worthwhile last term. But why would Bush go through the whole song and dance again, drawing lines in the sand, slapping moderates in the face, and knowing the very same nominees will reach the very same fate? In fact, isn't there some kind of saying about trying the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result?

But Bush isn't expecting a different result. He can't be. Instead, he hopes to gain political mileage from more of the orchestrated whining and crying on the GOP side of the aisle about the sure-to-come re-filibusters of the re-nominations. It seems like a better maneuver would have been to find 20 new radicals to nominate, so this bit of political maneuvering wouldn't be so transparently absurd. With enough bawling from the GOP, though, I'm sure the media will pick up on the re-filibusters and treat them just like brand new filibusters. That way, Bush can paint the Democrats as serial nominee blockers, when in fact they're blocking the same individuals they blocked before.

Will the Republicans fall in line behind this ridiculous tactic and cry about the result that everyone knows is coming? Well, Arlen Specter, at least, is not buying in. But we've seen what happens to Specter when the GOP hammer comes down on him. He stiffens up like a nail and gets driven right back into the platform. And although the Congressional Republicans are starting to find their own voice in this term, I have no doubt that they'll still howl on command from their boyish emperor.

And the purpose of all this bullcrap?

Rehnquist is gone soon, and Bush will be nominating a Supreme Court justice. He must be planning a doozy, and expecting the Congressional Democrats to oppose the nomination. He wants to argue that "obstructionist tactics" are just par for the course - that the Democrats have opposed all of his nominations. In fact, the rumblings among Democrats indicated that they would go easy on the filibuster for federal nominations this term, in order to save ammo for the Supreme nomination(s). Which brings us back to the earlier question: why not nominate new radicals? The answer: because they might actually be confirmed. Bush did the only thing he could do to actually ensure filibusters . . . When the cries of "obstructionist" start flying in a couple of months, let's remember this.

I don't know who Bush is going to nominate for the Court, but I never thought we would have such a radical president that I would be left praying for a longer term for Justice "separate but equal" Rehnquist.