There's Something About Michael

What it is about Michael W. McConnell? Powerline wants to see him nominated (right after Janice Brown Rogers, but that can't be helped). The Daily Kos thinks he's the best (realistic) choice for Chief Justice AND is continuing to back him to replace O'Connor--even though it would mean flipping a vote on Roe. I've been a longtime member of the McConnell bandwagon (see, e.g., here). How is it that this man is bringing together the left, right, and center like he is?

Indeed, it is rather difficult to find anybody not affiliated with an interest group who opposes McConnell. Helvidius at Ex Post thinks he isn't "necessarily committed to the text and history of the Constitution," which is an absurd charge--McConnell might be the single foremost originalist/textualist in American academia today. Check out some of the titles in his C.V.:

The Right to Die and the Jurisprudence of Tradition, 1997 Utah Law Review 665.

Segregation and the Original Understanding--A Reply to Professor Maltz, 13 Constitutional Commentary 233 (1996).

Originalism and the Desegregation Decisions, 81 Virginia Law Review 947 (1995).

The Originalist Justification for Brown: A Reply to Professor Klarman, 81 Virginia Law Review 1937 (1995).

Nope, nothing that even smacks of Originalism in that list.

Generally, the few people who do oppose him simply don't think he's conservative enough. They cloak it behind terminology like "originalism" and "textualism," but McConnell is proof that "following the text" doesn't always mean following the GOP talking points. What this crowd wants is a conservative activist, pure and simple.

But amongst much of the principled right (and left, especially those which have resigned themselves to the fact that yes, Bush is going to nominate a conservative), McConnell is an excellent choice.

I hope nobody tells President Bush I said that--nothing is more likely to doom McConnell's nomination than hearing that liberals won't scream bloody murder about it.