by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright September 6, 2005
All Rights Reserved.

icking Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts to replace the late Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who died of thyroid cancer Sept. 4, President George W. Bush once again proved his keen political instincts. After nominating Roberts July 20 to replace retiring Reagan appointee Associate Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, his nomination has already been thoroughly vetted in advance of Senate Judiciary Committee hearings now scheduled for Monday, Sept. 13. Despite grumbling from some liberal groups, there's virtually no opposition in the U.S. Senate. Now that Bush nominated Roberts for chief justice, it's going to be very difficult to mount any real opposition. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, Democrats don't have the fight left for another losing battle. At this point, it's all but checkmate for Bush to get what he wants.

      Despite all the adversity, including Sept. 11 and now hurricane Katrina, Bush has lucky star, allowing him to shape the Supreme Court for at least a generation, giving him two High Court picks. At 50, Roberts, like Rehnquist when he ascended in 1981 to chief justice, has youth on his side, steering the Supreme Court toward a “constructionist” philosophy—one that strictly interprets the constitution, or so say conservatives. In reality, all courts, including the High Court, operate on precedents or previously established judicial rulings. Roberts has already made it clear he supports established precedents, including Roe v. Wade, the controversial 1973 decision legalizing abortion. Whether Democrats like it or not, Bush earned the right to pick justices of his choice. Roberts mirrors Bush's philosophy that opposes judicial activism and, of course, ending innocent life.

      Because Roberts was nearly a shoo-in to replace O'Connor, it's going to be difficult opposing him for chief justice. While the chief justice sets the tone and chooses who writes majority opinion, he only amounts to one vote. Judging by Roberts genteel style, he's not going to railroad his colleagues. “Roberts has the skill, the mind, the intellect and the temperament to lead the Supreme Court for decades to come,” said Sen. Majority Leader Bill Frist, promising to bring his nomination to the Senate floor for a vote on Sept. 26. Democrats can't filibuster simply because Bush won't pick a liberal. If Democrats supported Roberts to replace O'Connor, it's going to be difficult mounting coherent opposition to Roberts as chief justice. “Substantive questions will be asked,” said Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), suggesting there's a big difference now approving Roberts to lead the High Court.

      Bush's faces some serious damage control in the wake of hurricane Katrina. Picking Roberts for chief justice obviates a bruising Senate fight, likely to create more PR damage. Roberts gives Bush political cover while he mends fences over the government's anemic response to the Gulf Coast disaster. Democrats worry that Roberts won't give the court the same balance as O'Connor, a moderate who sometimes sided with the court's liberals. While Roberts has a scanty judicial track record, his history in the Reagan and Bush-41 Justice Departments indicates sold conservative credentials. “We must oppose his confirmation as chief justice even more strenuously because, that post, he would have even greater power to shape the direction of our courts, our laws and our lives,” said Debra Ness, president of the National Partnership for Woman and Families, a liberal advocacy group.

      Judicial or personal philosophy doesn't determine the conscience of individuals faced with the awesome responsibility of defending the Constitution. Bush may think that Roberts mirrors his judicial philosophy. In reality, Bush knew he chose an independent thinker who will apply logic, common sense, and, yes, conscience to his judicial rulings to do what's right. Bush will have no more influence over Roberts' decisions than he does over Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan, responsible for managing the U.S. economy. It's ludicrous to think that Bush's personal views will somehow shape Roberts' judicial decisions. Roberts, like any other professional, has to “call ‘em like he sees ‘em.” When hearings begin Sept. 13, Democrats should refrain the kind of grandstanding currently giving the Party a bad name, walking the line between vetting and trashing.

      Picking Roberts to replace Rehnquist was a shrewd political move by Bush, steering the High Court in the conservative direction. Having said that, Roberts won't be sucked into ugly partisan quagmire played out daily on cable TV and across the AM dial. Bush knows that Roberts can't be easily pigeonholed into pop culture's simplistic definitions of liberal and conservative. “The chief justice must be committed to moving America forward toward equality, opportunity and fairness for all Americans,” said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), the Senate's most vocal liberal. All High Court nominees accept the country's most sacred documents, including the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. Whether Roberts satisfies Kennedy is anyone's guess. When the hearings begin, it's going to be abundantly clear that Roberts is his own man, defying today's divisive stereotypes.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2005 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.