'America deserves a unanimous Supreme Court justice'

I was intrigued to read about a website calling for President Bush to nominate a Supreme Court justice who receives unanimous support. America deserves it, huffs the site.

The Congress is tightly divided. The 2000 presidential election was decided by 500 or so votes (controversy aside). President Bush won the 2004 election by 3% of the popular vote and that was considered a landslide in these bitter times. So why does such a bitterly divided country deserve a unanimous choice? How could it possibly expect one? Could Bush find such a candidate even if he wanted to?

Liberal interest groups are going to declare nuclear war on any nominee who's not to the left of Ted Kennedy. Conservatives are going to declare nuclear war on anyone who's not to the right of Jesse Helms. Bush could nominate someone moderately conserative, like Alberto Gonzales, and have both camps declare nuclear war.

This is all typical posturing in a divided political environment. The majority thinks it has the authority to run roughshod because of a 51% mandate. The minority whines about consensus, a consensus it would never seek if it had the 51%.

Of course, the liberal website should be careful because it might get exactly what it wishes for. It might get another Antonin Scalia (approved by the Senate 98-0).