As bloody if. That someone would actually offer such a proposition is just plain moonbatty.
This is more of that "we gotta have ideological balance on the Court" claptrap.
Brownstein has the temerity to assert the following lickspittle:
Much of this history seems directly on point today. Like Truman, Bush faces a lopsided partisan imbalance on the court (if he names a Republican to succeed O'Connor, the GOP will hold seven of the nine seats).Brownstein is only technically correct. Seven of the nine would have been appointed by Republican presidents, but if anyone believes that Stevens (Ford) or Souter (Bush 41) or even all of the time Kennedy (Reagan) are by any stretch of the imagination conservative, then he's just plain nutty. Or is on something. Just because one is appointed by a Republican doesn't mean squat. I will bet that if Bush 41 had it do to over again, he would NOT nominate Souter the second time 'round.
Brownstein the Dreamer then uses the Eisenhower experience in nominating William Brennan as an example Bush could (should?) follow.
Eisenhower thought he could broaden his political appeal by reaching across party lines, and he encouraged his attorney general, Herbert Brownell, to find someone conservative, Catholic and a Democrat. Two out of three isn't bad: Brownell came back with William J. Brennan Jr., a Catholic Democrat who proved to be a liberal titan during his more than 33 years on the court.All the more reason for Bush to NOT take Brownstein's advice.
(Note that Brownstein can't find any examples of such crossover more recent than the Eisenhower Administration, 50 years ago.)
Name me one Democrat who would seriously consider naming a Republican to the Supreme Court, all in the name of "unity" or "ideological balance."
Oh, well. I guess when you're a liberal Democrat so far removed from power your have to use a telesscope to see it, any port in a storm will do. Might as well make the suggestion. Whaddya got to lose?
UPDATE: The bloggers over at Confirm Them also mentioned this funny column.