Campaign Spot reader Sam offers an interpretation of the alleged McCain remark that makes a lot of sense.

I thought your points were probably right, but it seems most likely to me, that at one of these events, McCain said something like “Given Democratic opposition to the Alito nomination, and further developments I’ve noted in the Senate, I’d think it would be much easier to get someone like Roberts on the court rather than someone who wears his conservatism on his sleeve like Alito, especially if it’s to fill Justice Stevens’ seat.” I’m sure a lot of conservatives wouldn’t like the implication there, either, that McCain wouldn’t fight for a conservative nominee if he had to fight the Democrats, but objectively, the statement is probably true, and would probably be followed by Romney too: if Stevens leaves the bench, the next Republican president will be faced with the choice of an outspoken conservative, a huge fight, and a vacancy on the court for months; or a more circumspect conservative like Roberts, who can get on the bench within a couple of months ready to go. I’d guess that both McCain and Romney would go for the latter option.

That kind of a statement does seem pretty plausible. Unfortunately, David Souter was supposed to be another one of those circumspect conservatives, too.

But is the only other option for a President McCain or Romney to nominate a strict constructionist justice, watch him or her get rejected on a party-line vote, nominate another, watch the same result, etc.? If it’s a strict constructionist replacement for Stevens, could the GOP count on Byrd, Conrad, Johnson, and Nelson? Could they count on liberal GOP senators? How long could the fight go on, with a Supreme Court potentially splitting 4-4 on decisions?