Why I Actually Believe George W. Bush Will Do The Right Thing...

Now, it's true I've got scarce evidence of him doing the right thing in the past to make me believe this, but I actually do think he'll nominate a moderate successor to the retiring Sandra Day O'Connor.

The reason I believe this is simple: Bush will have more light on his actions now than at any point in his presidency since the beginning of the Iraq War.

Think about it:

How many Americans know what the nuclear option is?

How many Americans have heard of Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown?

How many Americans are buying the Social Security snake oil that Bush is selling?

How many Americans know who Valerie Plame is?

How many Americans are bothered by the fact that Osama bin Laden is still a free man?

How many Americans know how many of our troops have died in Iraq?

How many Americans care about record deficits and an exploding national debt?

How many Americans actually give a fuck when the man speaks anymore???

Now consider this:

Everyone knows at least a little something about the Supreme Court, and I for one recall learning about Ms. O'Connor before any of the other Justices.

First, because she was the first female Justice to serve on the Supreme Court, and second, because she was appointed in 1981, not too long before I got to the meat of my elementary education. (Sorry if that made some of you older guys feel...well...old)

This woman is an American icon, moreso than any of the other Justices, including the soon-to-retire Chief Justice William Rehnquist.

Put simply, if he fucks this up, everyone will see it, and everyone will feel burned.

I believe Bush will do the right thing because more Americans will concern themselves with this issue more than Social Security, more than tax policy, and more (sad to say) than ill-advised wars in far-off lands.

For this reason, Bush has to do the right thing: replace a moderate with a moderate. He needs to do something to catch the attention of the American people in a positive way...

Then again, he may fuck it up once again...

Then it's go-time, bitches...

UPDATE: A key passage from a critical opinion rendered by Justice O'Connor:

(PLANNED PARENTHOOD v. CASEY, June 29, 1992: Opinion written by Justices O’Connor, Kennedy, and Souter; joined in part by Stevens and Blackmun)

Liberty finds no refuge in a jurisprudence of doubt. Yet, 19 years after our holding that the Constitution protects a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy in its early stages, Roe v. Wade (1973), that definition of liberty is still questioned.

We are led to conclude this: the essential holding of Roe v. Wade should be retained and once again reaffirmed, in three parts:

1. The right of the woman to choose to have an abortion before viability.

2. The State may restrict abortions after fetal viability if the law contains exceptions for pregnancies which endanger the woman’s health.

3. The State has legitimate interests from the outset of the pregnancy in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus that may become a child.