A few thoughts respecting the upcoming nomination.
Who should be chosen? This is a different question of who can be chosen. And, it is a different question depending on how you look at the matter. Obviously, President Bush can choose nearly anyone. He can choose someone in the blogosphere. He can pick Jenna Bush. And, the Senate has the power to block or confirm said individuals.
Becoming a bit more serious, one argument is that he could pick a strong conservative that is a buddy (Truman picked a few less than stellar buddies to the Court)and/or gift to some political base that he needs to satisfy. And, since he was elected, he has said right. One might call this a "mandate" to be guided by his own judgment. Thus, talk about a compromise pick, someone like O'Connor, or whomever is silly.
I personally do not share this philosophy. I am more sympathetic to the argument that as a leader of a divided country, he should pick a justice with a broader base of support as well as one that meets various other qualifications. The fact that O'Connor was a swing justice adds to this sentiment, but it would be true overall. He was chosen for various reasons, some quite dubious, and only by a plurality of the electorate. This suggests a limited "mandate."
It is true that who is President factors into the mix. This is a political matter, which is partly why ideology matters. Likewise, the Senate (controlled by his party) are involved. But, neither group are so controlled by Republicans that there should be a blank check. Furthermore, simply put, it is ill-advised for them to have one. The ultimate concern should be the best choice. In this country and with these political actors, some balance must be put in the mix. Thus, the Democrats are right to force some restraint.
The Democrats by the way are already f-ing things up. (1)At least one of the 14 that are Democrats are already saying that ideologically is probably not an "extraordinary circumstance" in respect to a filibuster pursuant to the recently agreed upon compromise. This pre-emptive surrender is both stupid and a wrong reading of the agreement. (2) Sen Reid et. al. are saying Gonzales is an acceptable choice. You don't do that. You don't give the other side an edge. It's stupid.
And, wrong in respect to Gonzales. First, this cynical argument that he is the best we can do is ill-advised. Such lack of moral principle will likely come back and bite you. Furthermore, simply put, if he is unfit to the role of A.G., he is unfit for being a justice. And, who knows how he will act once appointed to the Court? Pissing off the Right isn't enough, especially since helping Bush in this case very might help them as well.
A few years on the Texas Supreme Court (yeah, that's qualification) doesn't tell us too much. A few opinions that suggest he won't strike down Casey (abortion) and that he isn't Priscilla Owens is a slight reed to allow "quaint" guy on the Court ... and that wasn't the only things wrong with his record.
The Democrats are putting O'Connor out as a model. This is probably acceptable, though they shouldn't praise the deciding vote in Bush v. Gore (and the person who upheld principles of federalism over the right of death penalty defendants a few too many times) TOO much. Anyway, one interesting thing about her is the state legislative experience. This is quite useful and is probably a good thing to have on the Court.
Other things to look out for (not necessarily in order of importance): the nominee's overall judicial philosophy (equality, liberty, separation of powers, et. al.), his/her stance on precedent (including when it is acceptable to limit or even overrule it ... as well as expand it), their resume and life's work (honestly, I'm not oppressed with Bush's buddy's c.v.), their consistency and overall intellectual integrity (in all senses of the word), independence, and willingness to truly work with Senate (within reasonable limits) during the confirmation process.
The list is not all inclusive, thus I probably left various things off. The useful thing to remember though is that simple ideology only is important, but is not conclusive. Let's say we take the "Scalia" model. I'm not sure if this means someone as much of a bully as well as someone not truly willing to accept the consequences of a consistent application of their philosophy.
This nomination is important for the simple reason that we are concerned with the replacement of a key player in the top tier of the third branch of government. One can exaggerate the importance, but it is surely present. It is a political process (Balkanization noted other countries have a more independent process to select their judicial officers; some sorta career civil servants) and given the times it will be somewhat messy. This is acceptable -- GB's cries for calm is just a tad hypocritical.
Let's see who is chosen.