Lukey says Bush will want a Chief Justice who takes an expansive view of executive power. Two recent decisions are key here, Cheney vs. United States District Court and Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld. She says Scalia blew his chances by his honesty on the issue in Hamdi.

In short, Scalia looked the president in the eye on the executive powers issue and did not blink. It was a remarkable display of intellectual honesty, at potentially enormous cost, by the justice who would have been the front-runner under a "moral values" litmus test.

Clarence Thomas' lone position in Hamdi, while favorable to Bush, alienated Congress and his nomination would be sure to be met by a filibuster.

That leaves Justice Kennedy (O'Connor and Stevens are too old; Ginsberg and Breyer were appointed by Democrats. Souter dissented on the executive power issue in Cheney.)

Kennedy wrote the Cheney decision, which may have been the most successful executive power grab in half a century.

Lukey says Kennedy began as a conservative but has moved towards the center in recent years.

In contrast to Rehnquist and Scalia, he has managed to escape a reputation as an ideologue. As such, he is acceptable to almost everyone, an indication not of mediocrity but of relative moderation.
If he is nominated, Congress will approve him, probably unanimously.

Now here's the important part of Lukey's scenario:

More important from the perspective of the White House, he [Kennedy] will earn Bush political capital to spend on the nomination of a new associate justice who can shift the balance of the court further to the right and potentially exert influence for many more years than the new chief. It is a very favorable trade-off for the president. So favorable that those on the other side of the aisle should monitor the associate-justice nomination with extraordinary care.