[rrpjr]

I disagree with some of this.

Regarding cronyism, it won't matter. This is not an issue that will resonate with anybody outside that hearing room. Americans are given to cronyism (and nepotism) themselves -- and highly liberal in their tolerances of both. What will matter is if she appears to be an independent, well-spoken and capable-seeming person. If so, how she was appointed will mean not much. If not, all bets are off.

I do agree that Bush had an opportunity to box liberals in, though I believe Janice Rogers Brown would have been more effective at this than a hispanic, especially after the charges of racism following Katrina. That he has lost his nerve is very possible. At the same time, there is no basis for assuming this nominee is a "Souter II," or not his ideal conservative, or will not move the court to the right. She is simply a cipher -- to all but him. There is also no evidence in my view to believe Roberts will pull the court to the left. He may, he may not. But from all we know he is a confidently principled legal mind with a classicly conservative sense of juris prudence along lines of Rehnquist.

In any case, Bush has certainly shattered any myth that he would be an idealogue and appoint extremists to the court, as the world had been told from leftist rooftops for quite some time.