brushwud,
Looks to me like they weighed their options carefully. First thing is to get an appointee on the court. Roberts has already been subjected to some public attention and no obvious barrier stands in his way. They might've preferred Scalia, but that would mean another batch of confirmation hearings and there really isn't that much difference in being chief justice. Once they win the first confirmation, they have a lot more freedom in choosing the second. The court can get by with eight justices indefinitely.
I reconsidered it, and what Bush ended up doing does seem like a path of the least resistance.
Alternatives would be no Chief Justice in time to open the session, which would most likely mean Stevens would preside temporarily (I assume, since he has the most seniority) - not very desirable.
Another thing to consider is that O'Connor is coming back, her seat will not be empty. She will be there until a replacement is confirmed. Roberts now is not her replacement, but Renquist replacement. Which is why Democrats will filibuster the next nomination.
I guess the administration had to weigh what is more valuable, an empty chair or O'Connor. Tough choice, if you asked me today.
Yet another thing to consider is that it seems that everyone has more or less accepted the O'Connor -> Roberts trade. Which would have been a good trade for GOP - possibility of small to moderate gain. Then the next trade would have been Renquist -> someone who is more of a constitutional purist, which would have been another small to moderate gain, given that Renquist has lost bit of his edge in later years.
Now it is Renquist -> Roberts, which we don't know will be a net gain or loss, and it will be much tougher for Bush to nominate someone more conservative that Renquist to replace o'Connor.
So the path of most resistance would have involved probably 3 hearings and necessity to endure Supreme Court with 8 justices for some time and with Stevens presiding. But that path also offered the most to gain.
Joe |
