Why would Bush, after unprecedented and ostentatious appeals for bipartisanship and a happy lunch with Pelosi/Reid, go ahead and nominate Bolton and resubmit for consideration many of the same extremist judges that failed to get through the Senate previously?
I think it's a known failure, and may even be privately acknowledged by the administration to the Congress. What I see is a political ploy to affirm to Bush's dwindling base that he "still has backbone" and "still has their best interests at heart." A cursory review of conservative leaning blogs show that many of their occupants now paint Bush as a Democrat himself (ha! How little they know) or at best, spineless. Judges are an issue that hits very close to home for a good portion of wingnuts. I suspect this maneuver's purely political motivation may be an open secret in Washington.
Compare it to legislatures passing unabashedly unconstitutional anti-abortion legislation, like a ban failing to include a provision for the life/safety of the mother. It's a win-win situation for a legislator representing a conservative district. Legislation without those provisions are unambiguously unconstitutional and doomed to decimation in the judicial arena. Second year law students know this. And congressmen don't? Bah. I think the idea is the law never gets practically implemented, abortion remains on the table as a web issue, and the congressman/woman gets to smile for constituents and say "See! I tried! I tried! But those damn activist judges... Vote for me again!"
So the next time some obviously incapable lower federal bench judge is sent back for review, I'll be thinking it comes not necessarily as a middle finger to Democrats, but as more of a "wink, wink."