The Specter of wingnuttery haunts the Court

Atrios is surprised that religious conservatives may not get Arlen Specter’s head on a pointed stick after all. I think TAPPED’s accounts are indeed persuasive. Does this mean that people like Michael Totten are right, that movement conservatives are just a paper tiger?

I don’t think so. Remember what their prime objective is here: ensuring that every Federalist Society crank possible is safely confirmed to the courts. Getting rid of Specter is just a bonus. When we consider this, making a play on Specter’s job is a no-lose bet. If they get Kyl, great. But at worst, they’ve made sure Specter knows he’s under extreme constraints. And don’t kind yourself–he’ll happily do the wingnuts’ bidding. His reputation as a moderate on judicial appointments comes almost entirely from his role in stopping Bork. However, at the Thomas hearings he was the most reprehensible of Hill’s questioners, worse than Hatch or Danforth. Since Bush came into office he’s consistently rolled over like a 10 dollar whore. He’s not going to be an independent force against Bush, and the attempt to get rid of him serves its primary purpose if it reminds him that he’s out on his ass should he cross Bush. Anything else is gravy. (Indeed, I think it’s arguable that he’s more useful to the conservatives as Chair; his imprimatur makes it harder to claim that someone is anti-choice.)

While we’re talking about the court, according to Marshall the Nelson Report is skeptical about the Thomas-as-Chief rumor:

…the Drudge Report’s Sunday item that Bush is seriously thinking of Clarence Thomas for Chief Justice is not taken seriously…and if advanced, would stiffen the backbone of every Democrat, and not a few Republicans. Smart money remains on Justice O’Connor for Chief.

Now, these people are insiders, so obviously you should trust them. But as I see it, the logic here makes so little sense I’m tempted to stand my ground:

• Most importantly, O’Connor is 74 (remember, she was in the same law school class as Rehnquist), and she’s had cancer. Unless the Republicans think they have a permanent lock on the presidency, why would they do this? Their strategy of appointing young justices (which Thomas epitomizes) is used pretty frequently. Why risk giving up the Chief position in a few years with a Dem potentially back in the White House? I’m sure Bush would like to appoint the first female Chief, but there are certainly other options if he wants to go that way.
• As for the “stiffening backbones” of the Dems, maybe, but so what? The White House only needs to pick up a few. You think Breaux and Baucus aren’t going to roll on this? As for Republicans standing up, not bloody likely. Given that Bush’s lackey is the Senate Majority leader, GOP defections on SC appointments are going to be rarer than good scripts written by Chris Columbus.
• On the other hand, appointing O’Connor is a poke in the eye to social conservatives (I don’t see not joining the majority opinion in Lawrence saving her.) Who do you think Bush is more likely to upset?

Basically, I don’t understand the logic of the O’Connor prediction, based on what we know about how Republicans choose justices. They may know what they’re talking about, but absent specific knowledge I’m still betting Thomas is more likely.