The MSM Just Loves To Try And Cause Trouble...

I cited Confirmation Whoppers earlier today, and I just picked this story up from them, too. The New York Times has decided that some members of the GOP might end up defecting over the next nominee. Among them include some of our favorites. A couple we might even remember from the Seditious Seven/Gang of Fourteen from a couple months ago.

"It is going to be different," said Senator Lincoln Chafee, Republican of Rhode Island, who is socially liberal and has said he will vote to confirm Judge Roberts.

Mr. Chafee said he would apply a more skeptical standard to the next nominee because of the balance of the court and might even oppose a jurist similar to Judge Roberts. "I will be looking very carefully" at the next nominee's views on privacy rights, "separation of church and state," and the scope of federal power, he said.

He is one to talk as he openly allowed the Constitution to be abused, and the president’s overall right to nominate qualified people to the federal bench by agreeing to execute the deal in the Senate over judicial nominees. And him stating that he "might" oppose a jurist similar to Judge Roberts is most telling; my wager is that he would have opposed Judge Roberts had Chief Justice Rehnquist not died, and Judge Roberts not have been elevated.

Senator Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, a Republican who supports abortion rights and has said she will vote to confirm Judge Roberts, took a similar view. She previously voted to confirm some of Mr. Bush's appeals court nominees who met stiff liberal opposition, like Judge Priscilla R. Owen and Judge Janice Rogers Brown, two people said to be on Mr. Bush's shortlist. But Ms. Snowe said she might not support either one for the Supreme Court.

"This is certainly a different level of evaluation," Ms. Snowe said, "especially because of the balance of power on the court."

In other words, anyone who chooses to abide by the powers, restrictions, and rights enumerated in the Constitution, Sen. Snowe will oppose them. Both Judge Owens and Judge Brown are similarly qualified jurists, and there is no reason to oppose either unless Sen. Snowe is saying she appreciates the rogue, judicial activism that is emanating from the high court; a job of legislating that the court does not possess.

Others have sent more subtle signals. Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said last week that he suggested to the president that he should try to keep Justice O'Connor on the bench for a year, an idea that angered conservatives who said Mr. Bush had promised to move the court to the right.

In an interview, Mr. Specter said he believed the president could still command the support of Senate Republicans but added that a Supreme Court confirmation "brings into sharp focus independence and separation of power."

He continued: "People are more likely to look at this one with more independence as opposed to party line. I think it is pretty hard to vote party line on the Supreme Court."

Sen. Specter is wrong. There are few instances where the majority of the party has not voted for their president’s nominee. No Democrat defected over his judicial nominees, especially those appointed to the high court. And the GOP, for the most part, recognized the president’s power. They could not stop them in committee, and few opposed them in the Senate.

Now, both socially conservative and more liberal Republican senators say they may vote against confirmation of the next nominee if the pick leans too far to the left or the right on prominent issues like abortion rights.

Any Republican defection could provide cover for Democrats who want to oppose confirmation, protecting them politically in Republican-leaning states. Democrats have vowed to dig in for a tough fight over the nominee to succeed Justice Sandra Day O'Connor because she was a pivotal swing vote on the court.

It matters not whom the president chooses. If it is any one of the ten people on our short list, we will be looking at World War Four in the Senate, and enough weak-kneed senators from the GOP might not be willing to back a move to institute the Constitutional Option. The Con Option was the one chance left to restore the proper order in the Senate, and seven of them defected and created a deal to keep the illegal filibusters intact. This story is a chance for those seven to get back in line as Democrat lapdogs.

And if the RINOs that are facing reelection go against their base, they can expect a reprisal at the ballot box they may not enjoy. Sen. Snowe and Sen. Chaffee face reelection in 2006. The president promised the base he would only appoint those that could interpret the Constitution properly. There were no moderates proposed. They were no activists proposed. Only those like Judge Roberts, Judge Owens, Judge Pryor and Judge Brown. These were the sort of people he was meaning when he made that promise.

Beside, regardless of who is nominated it is expected that unless they are an activist, they will be openly, and with all the hostility the party can muster. I say to hell with them. Bring on the next nominee, and let us get this over with. Best to fight the war now, rather than tucking our tails between our legs and running away like whimpering dogs. We knew this was going to be a war. Machiavelli taught that "For those that desire peace, prepare for war."

We are prepared. We have been ready for months. Let the real war for the court begin.

The Bunny ;)