What is best strategy for Democrats to handle next Bush nominee ?

We almost know for certain that he has to nominate a well-known conservative or his base will revolt. Maybe someone as well-known as Orrin Hatch? But how should the Democrats handle it?

First of all, they should put the Republicans on the defensive. The leadership should publically declare that they will oppose any ideaologue that is put up and they should call all the Democrats together and attempt to get some unity on the opposition. They should be ready to filibuster if necessary. The Republicans need to know that right up front.

Secondly, the Repubs may threaten the "nuclear option". If so, we should try to hold the "gang of 14 together" with some honey and kind words. The so-called "nuclear option" cannot work unless this gang goes back on their word. Their honor is at stake. History is watching them.

Thirdly, the Democrats should publically state that the Supreme Court is there to represent all of America, not just the right-wing of the Republican Party.

This is a public relations battle as much as a political battle. The Democrats need to coordinate their messages for radio and television so that the people hear the Party's message each time a Democrat is on the media, not just their opinions. The first person the leader needs to talk with is Joe Lieberman. If we can get him to front the message, that would send the message to the Republicans that the Democrats are united.

and some vacuum-sealed lids to said vats.

Wait -- if we put the next Bush nominee in that vat, the manure would be obsolete.

A money-saver.

Let them try to invoke the nuclear option. It will be another case of Repug recklessness and will be seen as that by the public. If they pull the trigger, the Dems pull the trigger on voting by consent. But, there's no guarantee right now that the nuclear option will succeed at this time. Things have changed since spring.

The Dems should go the distance.

What is that? I should know this but I'm exausted and it's not in Google, Wikipedia or the Demopedia.

"Unanimous consent". That means that there's no roll call, members do not need to be at their desks, etc. The two leaders run through bill after bill, and vote after vote in a short period of time, all of which are approved without a formal vote, but by "consent".

If the Repugs pull the trigger on the nuclear option, the Dems will forgo "consent" and enforce the rules of the Senate. Every vote will become time consuming, all members will be tied to their desks, etc. It will radically change the way that the Senate has been run for some time.

at draftPrado.org , but there link is working right now so.
As far as Miers-I agree Bush is going to be scrambling to connect with the disgruntled far right fanatics.

You can take this to the bank: the Dems in the Senate will not filibuster another Senator's nomination to the Supreme Court. Period. End of discussion. And the gang of 14 would not regard their agreement as being applicable if an attempt was made to filibuster another Senator's nomination. The agreement of the Gang of 14 stated: "Nominees should only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances, and each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such circumstances exist." It would go against the culture of the Senate to attack one of their own.

onenote

:( and that may happen...

Though I completely agree with what's been said about the norm of collegiality within the Senate. Additionally, senators being who they are, they are unlikely to call any fellow member's credentials into question, as they think that being in the Senate renders one qualified for anything.

Hatch is 71. No way Bush would appoint him. Cornyn's scarier, at age 53, but he's got the Abramoff problem. No way the Republicans want to give the Democrats a forum to discuss that during the confirmation hearings.

The Meiers nomination was so far out that I don't think there's any way to predict who Bush will pick. The real question for the Senate will be credentials, not ideology. Bush could pick Scalia II, so long as he was someone who has judicial experience as opposed to, say, Bush's pool boy.

I do think they will select a man. It's too hard for them to find a woman who can pass all their kooky litmus tests and who is a qualified candidate and who wants the job.