A bipartisan group of U.S. senators who crafted a compromise on judicial nominees two months ago said President Bush's talks with both parties for his first nomination to the Supreme Court may help avert a divisive confirmation battle....What is the basis for concluding that Bush is "seeking to avoid a partisan battle"? The consultation with the Senators? Wouldn't he also do that just to avert criticism for failing to take the "advice" part of the Constitution seriously?
"We all expressed mutual confidence and praise for the manner in which the president has initiated 'the advice and consent,"' added Republican Sen. John Warner of Virginia. The U.S. Constitution requires that the president seek the advice and consent of the Senate on nominations....
Seeking to avoid a partisan battle, Bush is consulting with a variety of senators on who they would like to see on the court while insisting they will not get a veto.
I find it a little hard to understand why Bush needs to go out of his way to avoid controversy on this. What is his motivation? He said quite clearly when he was running for election and reelection what sort of justice he'd choose. Isn't it more controversial to back down on that that to follow through? Why wouldn't he choose the person he genuinely thinks is best and proceed with the fight for confirmation?