|
-
Progress for America and Planned Parenthood express opposing views in front of the Supreme Court yesterday. |
By MICHAEL ZITZ
At a formal dinner two decades ago in the nation's capital, an inebriated John Riggins famously told new Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, "Loosen up, Sandy, baby."
The colorful Washington Redskins star then passed out and slid under the table.
The problem for many Republicans was that O'Connor seemed to heed Riggins' advice, turning moderate after being named to the court by President Ronald Reagan, who expected her to vote as a staunch conservative.
O'Connor became a middle-of-the-road swing vote on hot-button issues including abortion.
It seems unlikely that D.C. federal appellate judge John G. Roberts Jr.--President George W. Bush's nominee to replace O'Connor--will loosen up in such a manner.
Roberts is considered a rock-ribbed Republican conservative, and as soon as Bush nominated him Tuesday night, the left and right wings of the U.S. Senate, which must confirm any nominee, began digging in to do battle.
It's expected that a Roberts confirmation would shift the court sharply to the right.
There's much at stake. In the coming year, the court is expected to rule on issues such as abortion, the right to die, due-process rights for "enemy combatants" and federal aid to universities that ban military recruiters.
Lew Fickett, a retired Mary Washington College professor who taught constitutional law and has followed the high court closely for 50 years, called Bush's choice of Roberts a clever "stealth nomination."
"On the surface, no one can seemingly object to Judge Roberts' superb qualifications," Fickett said. In his judicial record "there is only the slightest suggestion that he might differ from retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the crucial issue of Roe v. Wade." Still, Fickett, a Democrat, expects strong opposition from liberal groups.
Conservatives have applauded the nomination. In Virginia Beach, television evangelist Pat Robertson said in a statement that Roberts was at the top of his own list of candidates for the court vacancy.
But Robertson insisted that doesn't mean Roberts is a sure vote against abortion and gay marriage.
"We do not really know what Roberts will do in relation to abortion," Robertson said. "The appointment is not a litmus test on abortion, homosexual rights or anything else."
Fickett said the Roberts nomination could be complicated by the public relations problems the White House is having involving presidential advisor Karl Rove, who's been at least tangentially implicated in the investigation of the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame.
When O'Connor announced her retirement July 1, influential Virginia Republican Sen. John Warner said the president had been provided an opportunity to "step forward and be a uniter, not a divider, in this nomination by selecting someone that will gain the confidence of the majority of Americans, that will enable the two sides [in the Senate to join] in a bipartisan way and give strong ratification."
Warner was one of the "Gang of 14" senators who forged a compromise earlier this year to head off the use of the "nuclear option" to eliminate filibusters to block judicial nominations.
His response to the Roberts nomination was measured, commending the president in a statement for "an active period of outreach and consultation with senators from both parties," and he said he looks forward to studying the nominee's record.
Virginia Sen. George Allen, also a Republican, said in a statement: "I will base my vote on my belief that judges ought to apply the law and Constitution, not invent the law or amend the Constitution by judicial decree. I look forward to meeting with Judge Roberts, carefully examining his judicial record, and working in a bipartisan manner with my colleagues to give Judge Roberts the fair confirmation process that he deserves."
In an e-mail to Democrats, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, the party's 2004 presidential nominee, lambasted the pick.
"Last night we learned that President Bush wants to replace a woman who voted to uphold Roe v. Wade with a man who argued against Roe v. Wade, and that sends a clear signal that this White House remains bent on opening old wounds and dividing America," Kerry wrote.
"The Senate must learn whether he has a clear, consistent commitment to upholding Constitutional standards like civil rights, the right to privacy, and Roe v. Wade," Kerry wrote. "These issues are in serious question if you take even a cursory glance at his record."
To reach MICHAEL ZITZ:
