Dubya Beset By Woes

Wow, it's been a pretty tough week for W.

There was the whole CIA leaks investigation where Vice President Cheney's chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby was indicted and resigned. (What's up with that name? I think once you're past age 17 you should be forced to give up names like "Scooter.")

I suppose the good news for W was that they didn't indict Karl Rove - yet. He's W's senior advisor, chief political strategist, and Deputy White House Chief of Staff in charge of policy.

But the tough one for W had to be the Harriet Miers fiasco.

I can't say I was really surprised by the fact that Miers' nomination was withdrawn.

I know White House types were saying they were "stunned," but honestly, I don't believe they had no idea this was coming.

After all, this was the first time in my memory when a Republican Supreme Court nominee was so roundly embraced by Democrats and renounced by Republicans.

For cryin' out loud, it was Nevada Democrat Sen. Harry Reid who urged W to nominate Miers in the first place.

I understand that this is a very important nomination, but it's politics, too. And there was no way the right was going to get behind a nomination spawned by Harry Reid.

Frankly, I can't believe W went for it. Right after she was named, I was amused watching Democrats all bubbly and effusive over her.

But she's gone and now W has to figure out who's next.

I have an idea.

This time, W should pick somebody there is no question about.

You know how it works - Republicans nominate conservatives and Democrats nominate liberals.

So W should pick a raging conservative.

I mean, look at Bill Clinton. Would anyone consider Ruth Bader Ginsburg a moderate? Not really. She held views that were constitutionally and - as a matter of policy - at best extreme and at worst, fringy and bizarre.

Consider:

She expressed sympathy for the position that there is a constitutional right to prostitution as well as a constitutional right to polygamy.

She opined that perhaps the legal age of consent be lowered to 12.

She attacked the Boy Scouts and the Girl Scouts as organizations that perpetuate stereotyped sex roles.

She proposed abolishing Mother's Day and Father's Day and replacing them with a single Parents' Day.

She called to an end to single-sex prisons because, by golly, if male prisoners are going to return to the real world where men and women must function together, they might as well learn how to deal with women while in prison.

She also said that an imbalance in the racial makeup of an employer's workforce justified court-ordered quotas even if there was no intentional discrimination by the employer.

Despite this view, she operated an office for more than 10 years in a city with a black majority, yet never once - in 50 hires - offered a black person a job.

(The source for the information above is "Report of Columbia Law School Equal Rights Advocacy Project: The Legal Status of Women under Federal Law," co-authored by Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Brenda Feigen Fasteau. The hiring/quota stuff came from transcripts of her confirmation hearings.)

One would think someone so ideologically leftist and extreme could never be confirmed to the Supreme Court, right?

The Republicans would pull out all the stops. They'd obfuscate. They'd obstruct. They'd filibuster.

Right?

Nah. Wasn't even close. The vote was 96-3.

So my pick for the Supreme Court nomination is Janice Rogers Brown, a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. She previously was an associate justice of the California Supreme Court, holding that post since May 2, 1996.

She's awesome.

Here's why:

The "Save Our Courts" portion of the liberal civilrights.org Web site expresses "grave concerns" about her.

Ah yes, that is precisely the kind of nominee conservatives need.

Here's what civilrights.org has to say about her tenure on the California Supreme Court:

"A review of California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown's record to date raises serious questions and grave concerns about her persistent and disturbing hostility to affirmative action, civil rights, the rights of people with disabilities, workers' rights, and criminal rights. In addition, Brown has often been the lone justice to dissent on the California Supreme Court, illustrating that her judicial philosophy is outside the mainstream. Not only does she show an inability to dispassionately review cases, her opinions are based on extremist ideology that ignores judicial precedent, including that set by the U.S. Supreme Court."

Yeah, now that's what I'm talking about.

The lone dissent on the "mainstream" California Supreme Court is my kind of nominee.

(Can the words "mainstream" and "California" logically be used in the same sentence?)

When W tapped her for the D.C. Court of Appeals, the left went crazy.

"Janice Rogers Brown is the far right's dream judge," said People For the American Way President Ralph G. Neas. "She embodies Clarence Thomas's ideological extremism and Antonin Scalia's abrasiveness and right-wing activism. Giving her a powerful seat on the D.C. Circuit Court would be a disaster."

Bingo. I say, let's fight it out.

I disagree with that namby-pamby, pick-a-nominee-that-everybody-loves policy.

If the conservative nominee is confirmed, conservatives win.

If the Democrats filibuster and torpedo the nomination, conservatives still win because it shows just where Democrats stand.

If they want to filibuster because of his or her views on affirmative action, partial-birth abortion or gay marriage, so be it. All that will do is enlarge, strengthen and motivate the conservative base.

Also, remember when Brown was confirmed to the D.C.

Circuit? The Demos promised not to filibuster. The Republicans promised not to use the so-called "nuclear option" - changing the rules of the Senate to prohibit the use of the filibuster against judicial nominees. Brown was the reason for the deal.

Polls show that 82 percent of registered voters believe that qualified nominees should receive an up or down vote. The public doesn't seem to like the idea of filibusters.

Frankly, given the current state of affairs in the Republican party, a contentious Senate battle over a Supreme Court nominee might be just the shot in the arm conservatives need.

Let's be honest. With huge deficits, a war in Iraq, hurricanes, spiraling oil prices, looming indictments and a president with a 38 percent approval rating, what have the Republicans got to lose?