Pshaw, you say. There's no way Bush would nominate such an obviously polarizing figure, especially in this time that we all need to come together. He'd never do that, right?
I say that Bush's current unpopularity is exactly the reason he has to nominate a polarizing figure to the Court. I said all along (but can't find the old post, now) that Rehnquist was not going to be on the court this October, and that he knew as much at the end of the last session. I believe that the President knew it at the time, and the O'Connor resignation was carefully timed to try to allow Bush to fill the two vacancies serially, rather than in parallel. That way, it would be easier for him to nominate hardcore conservatives to both posts.
Bush needs to nominate a polarizing figure like Brown now to make the opposition to his leadership appear partisan. His incompetence in handling the Katrina situation has changed a lot of minds on his leadership; winning a bloody confirmation fight would reinforce the idea that he is a Strong Leader.
A major strategic reason he now has for nominating Brown is that Bush is sure to lose ground on his consistent effort to try to make headway within the Black community. Black folks everywhere will look at New Orleans and conclude that our racist society will just never get any better. I have long believed that the GOP is playing for keeps, and they want to permanently improve their showing among black folk, thus crippling the Democrats' most reliable source of support. All they have to do is get maybe 30% of the Black vote and they ensure that the Dems are a minority party forever and ever. A lot of you kossacks think I'm nuts, but I'm telling you: watch your flanks on this one.
Brown has an impressive personal story, and anyone who beats her up on the floor will look stupid. (With the possible exception of Obama, but he's not on the Judiciary committee.) She's dangerous to civil rights, privacy rights, the environment, and the Constitution in general.
Let the games begin.