While President Bush sits at the G-8 summit in Scotland, mulling over the potential replacements for retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the friction in the Senate over presidential pet and rumor-mill favorite, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, is likely to spark some fiery contention-and strange allies.
What’s unique about this particular polarizing force in Washington is that a Gonzales nomination may push hands together that otherwise would be used for a separate gesture altogether. If World War II showed us anything it was that fascists and socialists do get along at least some of the time.
The so-called social conservatives on the far right of the political tug-rope, who, for tradition’s sake usually are staunch Bush supporters, have vowed to block a Gonzales nomination based on his reported neutrality on abortion and gay marriage. The other end of that tug-rope, pulling with all of their “we-hate-W” might, may just decide to help create a noose for the middle-dwellers by joining ends with their life-long enemies.
At least by destroying any neutrality, compromise, and/or common sense that has the audacity to live amidst the center of political dogma, they can have at each other without any pesky obstacles until one theologyum, oops, not the word I was looking foruntil one ideology reigns supreme with blood on its nationalistic boots.
But more disturbing is the transference of what is typically a voter plight. Those remaining in the center, and even slightly to either side, may have to accept the nomination because the alternatives could be worse.
Democrats would be in a pinch to approve Gonzales despite the adding of a conservative voice to the Supreme Court just because of his certain centrist tendencies.
While the Democrats are losing Hispanic votes to Republicans (as demonstrated in the last two elections when Bush captured 36% in 2000, and then 40% in 2004), voting against a Mexican-American nominee wouldn’t be a smart move.
A Gonzales nomination is golden political move on the part of the President, who knows the majority of the right would support Kermit the Frog as long as a Republican president nominated him. Add that to the fears Democrats have about anyone they view as too conservative sitting on the highest court in the land, and that they would be reticent to oppose the first Hispanic nominee. The President’s usual political adversaries may have to concede, “he’s better than Bolton.”
The sour stomachs will churn and belch as they cast the “yes” vote forcing themselves to look over the obvious good-ol-boy nomination the President presents them. Bush refers to Gonzales as a “great friend,” and the Attorney General has been with one Bush administration or another all the way back to Texas.
Bush has used the proper rhetoric for the situation, saying that there is no solid “litmus test” for appointing a nominee. He asserts that specific issues such as abortion and gay marriage will not guide the process.
“I’ll pick people who … will strictly interpret the constitution and not use the bench to legislate from,” he said.
He also urged Senators to ignore special interest groups and make a sound decision.
While his words are comforting and most predict an easy approval of Gonzales in the Senate, others fear that the President will hold his cards on Gonzales, saving him for the inevitable stepdown of Chief Justice William Rehnquist.
In the meantime, an even more polarizing force may be selected causing a virtual war in the Senate all because Bush may choose to use his leverage, enjoying the first double appointing in 34 years. With two conservative appointees to the court, Gonzales wouldn’t be a very good replacement for O’Connor’s usual swing vote, especially if he errs on the side of conservatism.
Either way, the middle is pinched, wringed out by the ever twisting hands of the extremists, robbing the system of a more prudent judiciary.
