Earlier this week, Lott requested a delay in the Judiciary Committee vote, suggesting he was either gearing up to defend the nomination or preparing to let it die quietly in committee. His strategy became clear at the end of the week, when White House counsel Al Gonzales started phoning committee Democrats asking how they would vote on Pickering, and whether they would consider sending his nomination to the Senate floor even if it failed in committee. “It’s like high school, isn’t it?” says an amused Senate aide. “Would you ask her if she’ll go to the prom with me?”

Gonzales reportedly got nothing but polite turndowns from all 10 Democrats. Majority Leader Tom Daschle and Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy say they would only bend the rules and send a failed committee nomination to the floor in the case of a Supreme Court nominee. That’s how Clarence Thomas managed to win confirmation. A vote on Pickering is scheduled for Thursday. Republicans could seek yet another week’s delay. But as of this writing, Judge Pickering appears to be facing a weighty decision: Does he want his career capped by a negative vote–or does he withdraw his name?

This is a fight neither party wanted. The White House, the Democrats, even the liberal interest groups arrayed against the nomination would have preferred the first test case of judicial power be somebody more to their liking, or disliking, depending on which side you’re on. Pickering’s name was sent to the Senate because of his friendship with Republican Leader Trent Lott, not because the White House had specially singled him out. He’s 64, which sets him apart from President Bush’s other court nominees, who are in their 40s and 50s and better positioned to get full advantage from a lifetime appointment. The White House signaled early that Pickering was not a make-or-break nomination for the president. His long and checkered past in Mississippi politics would be hard to defend, and not worth the political capital.

The Democrats, meanwhile, didn’t want Pickering as their poster boy for future court battles. Challenging him meant taking on Lott, not just the White House. Since he was dethroned last spring as majority leader, Lott has been playing an especially petty game of politics. When he vowed Pickering would win confirmation “or else,” Democrats knew that meant Lott would find a way to exact revenge. Some of the interest groups were slow to get involved. Why waste firepower on somebody who won’t have an extended time on the court, and who is not distinguished enough, or young enough, to ever be a candidate for elevation to the Supreme Court, which is where the real bloodbath will take place?

Pickering initially got red-carpet treatment. His first hearing was scheduled for Oct. 17, and it commenced even though much of the Capitol complex was shut down because of the anthrax scare. Pickering looked like he would slide through, but moments before the hearing, Senate Democrats discovered that Pickering had authored some 1,000 unpublished opinions. Staffers spent the next few months retrieving and reading those opinions. While there was no smoking gun, a pattern emerged of a jurist generally unsympathetic to women’s issues, workplace complaints and civil-rights and civil-liberties concerns.

A second hearing held in February amplified Pickering’s conservative leanings, and prompted charges of racial insensitivity, which may not be fair. Some hometown friends of Pickering who are black refuted the insinuation that Pickering was a racist.

Despite a spirited Republican counteroffensive, Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee held firm in their opposition to Pickering. When Lott asked for an extension, word buzzed around the Capitol that he would be taking Democrats “out back and beating the crap out of us” in a metaphorical mafia-style show of power. Lott needed to break one of the 10 Democrats on the committee so the nomination could advance to the floor, where Pickering would have a good chance of winning confirmation.

But Lott did not approach any Democratic members. Instead, he said that Pickering would have to decide for himself whether he wanted to go forward with his nomination, a statement that sounded like the kiss of death.

This could be a Pyrrhic victory for Democrats. Younger and harder-edged conservatives are waiting their turn in the barrel, and they could be harder to defeat. “It’s like a tidal wave, like a dam has been released,” says a Senate staff aide. President Clinton tended to send middle-of-the-roaders to the Senate for judicial confirmation, knowing he didn’t have the political clout to sustain and win a fight. In contrast, President Bush is pushing the limits on how far right he can go, given his high approval rating and the distraction of the war against terrorism. There is no David Souter on Bush’s list. Souter was largely a mystery when he was confirmed as a Supreme Court justice, and he proved far more liberal than anyone expected. “They’re not going to let any mistakes happen,” says a Judiciary staffer researching the nominations. “These people are known quantities, thoroughly vetted.”

The ideological crusade got under way when Ronald Reagan was president, and conservatives realized that no matter how conservative the president, many of their goals could never be achieved legislatively. Reshaping the courts began under Reagan and picked up steam after the Republicans captured the House and Senate in 1994. An aide to Republican Orrin Hatch, who chaired the Judiciary Committee until last spring, kept a huge map in his office with a flag for each federal judge across the country to indicate whether it was a Republican or Democratic appointment. This kind of accounting and analysis would have been unthinkable in an earlier, less viciously partisan era. Today, it’s routine on both sides, and when it comes to the body count, Republicans may be down one on Pickering. But they’re far ahead in the number of judges their party has installed.

CALIFORNIA DREAMING

The California primary is Tuesday, March 5, and Arizona Sen. John McCain says he’ll stay up late to await the results. He’s likely to be disappointed. His candidate, Secretary of State Bill Jones, is so far down in the polls that he’s being called the invisible man. The White House could also be embarrassed. At Karl Rove’s urging, President Bush convinced former Los Angeles mayor Richard Riordan to run, and what once looked like a slam-dunk has turned into a nail-biter as conservatives discovered Riordan is so liberal he even gave money to San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown. “They should have talked to Rudy first,” quips McCain. Former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani has thrown his considerable weight behind financier Bill Simon, who Rove dissed as too right-wing to win in California. California Gov. Gray Davis, who has already banked $40 million for his reelection, must be smiling.