I think, from a characterological perspective, Irish is probably right - I don't see any backing down with this president.  And in some ways, it's probably going to be an even more Nixonian couple of years, as the President becomes more isolated, more apocalyptic, and less concerned with implications of today's actions further down the road.  Will that hurt the Republicans in the long run - probably.  But on the other hand, there's one way out for the rest of the party: don't play along.  Assuming (for the sake of argument) that the Senate goes Republican, but Bush goes his own way anyway - well, anyone in the GOP who wants to keep power in 2008 will see the advantages in distance.  And this might oddly bring us full circle - if Bush plays things like this, that might just be the one thing that forces his erstwhile allies in Congress to finally stand up for the separation of powers.

The Bush Administration considers flexing its executive power over John Bolton to cut Congress out of its Constitional role of advise and consent.

The issue is how they could keep Bolton on the UN job without Senate confirmation.  The basics from Steve Clemons (of the Washington Note, who has been on the Bolton story from the beginning):

I need to consider the implications of this analysis a bit more closely -- but essentially, here are the options as I see them now.

Bolton could be recess-appointed to his current position, but he would have to work for no pay.

Alternatively, Bolton could be "nominated" to a lesser position at the United Nations -- and some are suggesting that in such a Deputy role, Bolton could be made the "Acting Ambasssador." The fact is that all of the deputy jobs that Bolton might be appointed to are 'encumbered' -- meaning people hold those positions. In addition, that appointment would also have to be submitted to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for action, which would certainly be negative.

Another bizarre but possible White House strategy is to appoint John Bolton Deputy National Security Advisor to the President, a position NOT subject to Senate confirmation, and then make him "Acting Ambassador to the United Nations."

Some believe that this is the strategy that White House General Counsel Harriet Myers is trying to cook up. However, this would cross many legal lines and certainly be litigated and challenged by a number of U.S. Senators.

When President Clinton played these games with the recess appointment and then "acting role" designation for Bill Lann Lee, the then-Republcan controlled Congress shut down the loopholes that allowed these kinds of appointment shenanigans.

John Bolton, if appointed to a non-confirmed position, does not fit one of the three allowable categories to be given an "Acting" role designation because the only role in his work history that would allow him to serve as "acting" UN Ambassador is his current role as UN Ambassador, which he received by recess appointment.

Arnold & Porter concludes that Congress did not write law that intended to give the President to circumvent the Federal Vacancies Reform Act that tied up such past loopholes.

For more, Steve notes:

....Scott Paul has posted a useful short synopsis of a legal analysis of the President's options on Bolton -- prepared by Arnold & Porter.

The detailed legal analysis is here -- and should be read carefully.

I am just starting the 10 page legal analysis, interesting and readable to a nonlawyer.