A sizzling political summer it is likely to be with the retirement of Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

Bill Kristol called it first, as I posted here about a week ago. He also predicted that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales would be the replacement. However, the White House appears to be aware that a Gonzales appointment would be somewhat of a disappointment for conservatives, and it is at least an even bet now as to whether he'll be nominated, whereas it appeared almost inevitable about ten days ago.

This also appears to be the worst case scenario for liberals. An indication of just how ugly this confirmation process is likely to get from Washington Post columnist Terry Neal's on-line chat earlier today (HT: Hugh Hewitt):

"Washington, D.C.: How ugly is the appointment process going to get. Uglier than if Rehnquist had resigned?

Terry Neal: Yes, uglier. Much, probably...Rehnquist was one of the court's three most reliably conservative members, along with Scalia and Thomas. If Bush were to replace him with someone equally or even more conservative, it probably wouldn't really change the overall nature of the court. It would, of course, be very controversial if he resigned and Bush replaced him with a moderate--which the GOP's base would find infuriating. But I don't think that would happen anyway, so the point is moot.
O'Connor was probably the least predictable of any of the court's members. She often sided with conservatives on big votes, such as stopping the Florida voting in 2000 and on some states rights issues. But she often sided with the left on some big issues, such as a woman's right to chose, and affirmative action...
Funny, as I was writing this answer, I got a call from a spokeswoman for the National Organization of Women. They are all gathered at their annual conference in Tennessee...The spokesman said: "Every one is devastated. This is the worst-case scenario. She was the wall between us and losing Roe...So everything is at stake. And we're issuing a call to action to everyone in America who cares about women's lives. This is going to be the most important battle in decades."

Further indication over at the homepage of the National Organization for Women. There you will find pictures of four women who died because "they could not obtain safe and legal abortions." NOW then goes on to state "If Roe v. Wade is overturned, these pictures could include your daughter, sister, mother, best friend, granddaughter...Don't let George W. Bush and the U.S. Senate put another anti-abortion justice on the Supreme Court."

You thought the Clarence Thomas hearings were nasty?. It looks as though we haven't seen anything yet. Republicans should not underestimate the unity and the total ferociousness that Democrats are going to bring to this fight.

***

Related:

No Supreme Court Resignation
Gonzales Nomination To Supreme Court Potentially "Politically Disastrous"
Supreme Court Vacancy Speculation

***

Others Blogging:

Confirm Them
Bench Memos
Nomination Blog
Scotus Blog

Powerline: "Let The Games Begin."

Glenn Reynolds: "O'Connor's, um, variable voting pattern means that if whoever replaces her is more consistent it will make a disproportionate difference. That also means that this fight is likely to be nastier than the fight over, say, a replacement for Rehnquist."

John Podheretz: "I have the greatest respect for Chief Justice Rhenquist, but if this announcement means he's not stepping down, as rumor has it, that's a travesty. The man can barely speak and he can barely walk, there's no way he can manage the pace required of a Supreme Court justice, and if he's clinging on to his seat irrationally, this should be a matter of public discussion."

Captain Ed: "O'Connor's retirement puts more pressure on the Senate than a Rehnquist retirement would have done. Rehnquist has consistenly provided a conservative voice on the court, and replacing him with another conservative would probably not have concerned moderate Democrats, who want to keep their powder dry for selected battles. O'Connor, however, has voted more from the center, and replacing her with a staunch conservative might get some of those moderate Democrats to the firing lines in the political battle to come."

Hugh Hewitt: "Watch the talking head cable shows tonight for an early indication of MSM bias. There are a half dozen superb conservative law professors who are also great on television, beginning with John Eastman, Jonathan Adler and yours truly to name a few. Political bias is easy enough to spot, but when the parade of the law professors begins, that's when legacy media will tilt the field."

Ramesh Ponnuru: "Her split-the-difference, compromising jurisprudence may have been designed to promote social peace, but if so it backfired. In two ways, it made the politics of Supreme Court confirmations more bitter. First, it tended to inflate the role of the Supreme Court in American life. When the Court sets itself up as a micromanager of policy decisions and provides no clear guidance as to what passes "constitutional" muster and what doesn't, the stakes in any confirmation get higher. Second, her career on the Court--along with those of Justices Kennedy, Souter, and to a lesser extent Stevens--made the Right suspicious of nominees whose loyalty to conservative principles had not been explicitly demonstrated. Conservatives learned that nominees often drifted left, and almost never drifted right, and adjusted their demands accordingly. It may not be the legacy she wanted, but it's the one she's left."

John Derbyshire: "I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict that the SCOTUS nominee will not be a white male of European ancestry."

Todd Zywicki: "Reading the tea leaves, it seems clear that there will be a brutal confirmation battle regardless of who is nominated. At this point, a confirmation battle will be supply-side driven--the interest groups have the money already, and they are going to spend it one way or the other. And then try to raise some more. And the politicians are going to try to raise money by pandering to these same players. No one is going to roll over on either side just because a particular nominee is thought to be "moderate" rather than "conservative".