Three confirmation hearings? I don't buy it. Instead, I think he'll appoint a new guy to the Chief Justice chair. There's no requirement that the Chief has to be elevated from the court itself.

Per Kari's analysis--it's actually a rarer to appoint a chief than to bring a new one in--Rehnquist notwithstanding. And Kari's analysis is accurate, methinks (court-watchers are also aware of how divisive Scalia is on the court; he'd make a poor choice as chief, and would be a bear to get broad agreement on).

The part I agree with most in your wildly speculative post (my favorite kind--andI'm even worse at predictions than you!) is this: the left begins thinking "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," and "this is the best we'll get" and then... well, the president gets exactly what he wanted in the first place, with less of a battle from the honorable opposition.

I've been watching with growing alarm at the treatment Al "we don't call that torture in Texas" Gonzales has been getting from lefties. Are we really going to consider a guy like him just to keep Roe? Oy.

There is an argument to be made that two vacancies would be better than one: with two, we wave through an ideologue in exchange for an O'Connor swing (who, naturally, holds a Kennedy-like agnosticism toward abortion). Keep in mind, with the '06 elections coming up and the memory of Terri Schiavo fresh in everyone's mind, the GOP position is considerably weaker than they would have liked less than a year after sweeping the elections. The GOP can't afford to look TOO wild-eyed.

Hey, I didn't say it was a strong argument. A boy can dream, can't he?

Rehnquist was elevated from Associate to Chief in 1986. Before him was Warren Burger who was appointed directly as CJ to replace Earl Warren... prompting neverending confusion between the two "Warrens" for all eternity.

I agree... Scalia would be an odd choice precisely because he pisses off most of the other justices. Not a consensus builder to be sure. The argument for a Scalia elevation goes something like this - Scalia's elevation is a bone thrown to the right who seem to value to chief's job. Why that is continues to puzzle me. I think the Chief's job is largely ceremonial and administrative. The only true authority the chief has over an associate is the ability to assign who writes the majority opinion if he or she is in the majority. Since that authority is not dispositive of how a case decision swings - just the verbage of the opinion - it's not nearly as big of a deal in my opinion.

In any event, take a look at this for the argument why a Chief Justice Scalia is not necessarily a bad thing from our perspective...

I'm convinced: Scalia for chief! After, of course, a long and capital-draining battle with the Prez.

Wandering now some distance from the thread, there was a great article about Scalia in the New Yorker a few months back. Here's a reprint. Interesting factoid: Scalia's best friend on the court is Ruth Bader Ginsberg, with whom his family spends each New Year's Eve.

Gonzales' record is more clearly dangerous, in my view. The torture memo is only the start of it (and end in my view, given its seriousness). Here's more. He:

• authorized the CIA to transfer prisoners to foreign countries for "interrogation;"
• was an advisor in the presidential order for military commissions to try prisoners;
• contended that any person may be held indefinitely without outside scrutiny (a position rejected by the current supreme court);
• failed to let the Senate review memos about Miguel Estrada;
• gave Bush negligent advice about death-row inmates;
• advised Governor Bush to ignore the Vienna Convention.

This is a man who has actively made an assault on civil liberties in the US, supports federal secrecy, and doesn't care much for international law. Of all the times we need a guy like this, now is about the last.