In 1937, after several of his cherished New Deal initiatives had gone down to defeat at the hands of a troglodyte Supreme Court, FDR announced his plans to rewrite the rules governing the Court. For every justice over 70 who did not retire, FDR proposed to appoint a new judge, in order to make the Court reflect more broadly the changing ideas about the state in the country.
This was immediately reviled by many across the country, even FDR's numerous supporters (remember that he'd just won a landslide re-election victory). FDR's 'court-packing scheme', as it was called, was eventually abandoned but not before fatally weakening FDR's administration, leading to a more conservative Congress in 1938 that started to attack the New Deal.
Now, it seems, Bush has had his court-packing moment. From the NY Times:
"With his re-election campaign barely started and his conservative base already demanding tribute, President Bush proposes to radically rewrite the Constitution. The amendment he announced support for yesterday could not only keep gay couples from marrying, as he maintains, but could also threaten the basic legal protections gay Americans have won in recent years. It would inject meanspiritedness and exclusion into the document embodying our highest principles and aspirations...Polls show that while a majority of Americans oppose gay marriage, many would prefer to allow the states to resolve the issue rather than adopting a constitutional amendment. They understand what President Bush does not: the Constitution is too important to be folded, spindled or mutilated for political gain."
Pretty forceful stuff. I think this will be a bridge too far for Bush and will reveal to Americans the truly radical character of this government.
I also like the shout-out at the end to the Berkeley Free Speech Movement of 40 years ago. Reading between the lines, sounds like the NY Times supports Mayor Newsom but won't come out and say so openly.