Interesting theory. Sure would love to think something as complex as that is the reason.... but I'm not so sure.

But I agree with you in that I think there is something more behind the nomination than simple cronyism.... I really, really hope so.

I completely agree that it HAS to be something more than cronyism. But I really think this isn't some super secret Rovian plan to de-elevate the court's status. I really do think that the President knows more about what he's doing than most of the people commenting on it, but I've seen some pretty wild speculation on what it might be...

The best one I saw today was someone positing that it was an effort to get Stevens to feel more comfortable about retiring.

If it did get that old Bolshevik Stevens to hang it up, it would be a net win.

Too many dominos need to fall for that to be a reliable outcome though.

Twenty years with Rehnquist wasn't enough to drive Stevens into retirement, the NKOTB won't either. Stevens will serve for life, just like Rehnquist, and continue to make Ford happy with his decision.

I guess the question I have for you all is, I hear alot of, "The President must know what he's doing, otherwise why would he be doing that? So, I'll just go ahead and trust him."

What will you say when you realize he isn't God and is capable of making mistakes? Are you capable of admitting you were wrong?

I've seen similar speculation throughout the conservative blogosphere; that President Bush is in essence enticing Stevens and/or Ginsburg to retire on his watch by nominating the unknown/unthreatening Miers.

That could well be the strategy, but I cannot get the idea out of my mind that the president is not confident the senate Republicn leadership could prevail in a fight to confirm Rogers Brown, Owens, Luttig and their type. (After all, Frist did allow his leadership to be ursurped by the gang of fourteen during the last round of appellate court nominations.) If he puts up a demonstrable conservative nominee now and the senate leadership can't prevail, his presidency truly becomes a lame duck. By putting up Miers, even though she has drawn a lot of criticism from the conservative commentators, he can avoid that fight (with a questionable outcome), and then rally more than enough grass routes support to ensure a victory in replacing Stevens and/or Ginsburg with a demonstrably conservative judge. In essence, he would have defused any Democratic capability to obstruct a next SCOTUS nomination.

My take on his presidency, so far, is that President Bush is not terribly skilled on the close-in fight (with reporters and Sheehans, etc.), but a more brilliant long term strategist I have not seen in the oval office. (Remember, going into Afghanistan and Iraq, he told us to expect a long term campaign to counter Islamic terrorism.) He may not even be the the one to reap the benefits of the strategy - it may be his Republican successor that seats demonstrably conservative judges in the place of Stevens and Ginsburg.

I think all those folks forecasting that the Miers nomination will to be withdrawn by the president or the candidate herself are misunderestimating GWB.

One last thought...

I think those calling for the withdrawal of Miers and the nomination of a decidedly conservative justice are lookin for "instant gratification". It's now or never; this is why we elected a president who promised to fill the SCOTUS with constitutionalists; damned the torpedoes - full steam ahead! It only takes one torpedo in the right location to sink a ship. I'd truly hate to see a decidely conservative supreme court scuttled by a bunch of impatient loudmouths looking for a fight - especially when a fight may not be necessary.

Old Soldier -

Just wanted to say, good arguments. We may not always see eye to eye, but I truly think you are onto something.

Don't 100% agree with the "more brilliant long term strategist" remark, but then again it'd probably be pretty weird if we agreed 100% of the time.

Otherwise, I think you're spot on. The big question is whether those 27 Republican Senators will fall into place or not.

Also, the fawning, sycophantic collection of greeting cards the White House released this week doesn't help Miers' case.

What will you say when you realize he isn't God and is capable of making mistakes? Are you capable of admitting you were wrong?

I wasn't aware that anyone had ever made Bush a deity. I personally disagree with him on many domestic issues and get irritated with the tactical execution of his foreign policy on many occasional. Lockstep sycophants are relatively rare among those on the center-right that I tend to associate with, and so I write your comment off to ignorance, willful or otherwise.

It is quite common to find a conservative who will disagree with Bush when he is wrong. It is next to impossible to find a liberal to concede that he may have ever been right.

Above should read "on many occasions."

Glen over at What Attitude Problem has an article that articulates my sentiment about the president not necessarily being confident in the senate leadership. Check it out...

http://whatattitudeproblem.blogs.com/home/2005/10/diaper_change.html#trackback

"I personally disagree with him on many domestic issues and get irritated with the tactical execution of his foreign policy on many occasional."

What are five domestic issues you have with him?

I only wish this was true. Liberals may be contemptable and wrong, many lack moral compasses, but most of them are painfully sincere. They believe what they are doing is right. If Miers turns out to be a bumbling fool, the old Liberals will hang on until they either keel over in their chambers or someone takes over the presidency that they trust will make the "correct" replacement choice. Even Sandra Day O'Connor might be thinking maybe she made the wrong decision.

This is all a set up. Harriet Miers is in on it. That the plan was really to put HM on the Appellate Court all along and when everyone started to freak out, the President would put someone of unquestionable loyalty and credentials on the High Court. . .

Hugh Hewitt is the true steath nominee.

What are five domestic issues you have with him?

Just five? I can think of that many broad categories when I disagree with him; if you want to get into specifics, I could probably find dozens of individual things, but I don't see where that would advance any the conversation.

I disagree with President Bush in the following broad areas:

1. Immigration. Bush is an "open borders" advocate. I want strong border security, a zero-tolerance policy towards illegals, a robust and enforceable guest worker program, and a higher threshold of requirements for permanent immigration. I'm all for letting people in to this country to work, but they must follow our laws and cultural norms. It is a privilege for them to come here, not a right. This is actually just one of many homeland security issues I have with President Bush.

2. McCain-Feingold. He should have vetoed this blatant infringement on free speech rights, which is far worse than anything the Patriot Act had to offer. He didn’t. I’m still mad.

3. Size and role of government Bush is a big-government liberal when it comes to spending on useless domestic programs. An example is the Dept. of Education. I want the Dept. of Education disbanded; he wants to pour millions more down that rathole.

4. Rebuilding New Orleans He should have bought out the most flood-prone and flood-damaged areas and returned them to the wetlands. Instead Bush has engaged in political pandering that will cost hundreds of billions on a city that Mother Nature has marked for death within the next century. This is a huge mistake we’ll pay for time and again before the Big Easy finally slips under the Gulf of Mexico.

5. Expanding the role of the Military stateside I am morally opposed to broadening he power of the military domestically. Historically, that has rarely turned out well.