Liberal Talk Radio

I finally figured out this John Roberts nomination, with some help from Think Progress:

In terms of judicial philosophy, John Roberts is not Justice O’Connor’s replacement. He is quite clearly a preemptive replacement of Chief Justice Rehnquist.

This is important to recognize substantively, but also strategically. … To improve our chances of appointing a more moderate nominee in Rehnquist’s position, progressives should make clear now that we consider Roberts to be Rehnquist’s replacement. Then, when Rehnquist retires, we can rightfully demand that President Bush appoint a justice in the mold of Justice O’Connor.

Now, I don’t know that what “progressives should make clear” makes a lick of difference, but I suspect this: Bush will pick a moderate, but not because “progressives” told him to.

Last week on the radio show I mentioned that had Rehnquist retired, it would have been harder for Bush to nominate two hard-liners at once. Rehnquist’s delayed retirement means greater potential for two ultra-conservatives, I feared. Reason being that if you dole it out in little bits, people are less likely to notice.

But I didn’t see this one coming. By replacing Rehnquist first, he can then safely pick a moderate when Rehnquist actually retires, closer to the ‘06 or ‘08 elections.

Why would he even want to pick a moderate, you ask?

1. He knows the American people don’t want to overturn Roe just yet.

2. Roberts was the base-pleasing nominee. With that debt paid, he can move the party to the center where it needs to be for the elections, when it will be harder and harder to invoke 9/11 as a blanket reason to keep the GOP in power.

3. A centrist nominee will deflate the Democratic opposition, making them look wimpy in time for said elections, allowing the GOP to make gains among moderates (see point #2).

Crazy? Maybe. Shrewd? You betcha.