The Washington Post reports that President George Bush’s advisors now pondering a possible Supreme Court Justice nomination may have to decide between picking a conservative (which pleases conservatives) or a Hispanic nominee high on his preferred list (which would upset conservatives, perhaps be a bit more acceptable to Democrats and make history).
The choice: no matter what Bush does he may face some hefty political fallout. Which way will the White House veer? The Post:
President Bush’s advisers are focusing their search for a new Supreme Court justice on a trio of candidates who could present the president with a choice that would help shape his legacy — pick a reliable conservative to anchor the court for decades or go for history by naming the first Hispanic chief justice at the risk of alienating his base.
While the cancer-stricken Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist has not publicly signaled his decision, many in the White House and around Washington expect him to announce his retirement at the end of the court’s current term next week, opening the nation’s top judicial post for the first time in 19 years and setting up a potentially savage nomination battle.
White House officials have prepared for the prospect by culling long lists of possible candidates, poring through old cases and weighing a variety of factors from judicial philosophy to age. Bush and his inner circle have had tightly held deliberations and no one can say for sure whom he might pick for chief justice, but outside advisers to the White House believe the main candidates are federal appeals Judges John G. Roberts and J. Michael Luttig and possibly Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales.
What about Justice Clarence Thomas? His name was being mentioned for a while as a leading candidate. Could he still be on the short list? MORE:
For a time, many officials and analysts in Washington assumed that Gonzales, a longtime Bush confidant and his first-term White House counsel, had been ruled out as a candidate because he took over the Justice Department in February. But in recent days, several advisers with close ties to the White House said Bush appears to be considering Gonzales, after all.
If so, it sets up a delicate conundrum for Bush. A Gonzales appointment would be a politically appealing “first” that could ease the confirmation process among Democrats and help expand the Republican base, according to some strategists. But many conservative leaders see him as too moderate on issues such as abortion and affirmative action, and a Gonzales-for-Rehnquist trade would effectively move the court somewhat to the left.
If this White House’s track record is any indication: Gonzales won’t be the choice. Its history so far is to opt for decisions that solidify rather than expand the Republican party’s base. But, heading towards the latter part of his final term, could GWB be thinking a bit more now towards his legacy? MORE:
“He’s clearly in the running,” said one adviser who, like others, shared insights on the condition of anonymity to preserve relations with the White House. “And that’s an easy confirmation — that’s the easy confirmation.”
While most Senate Democrats opposed Gonzales’s confirmation as attorney general because of his involvement in setting guidelines for interrogations of detainees, he did get 60 votes, just enough to beat a filibuster. And the adviser said the White House senses that Democrats would not wage an all-out fight against his elevation to the court. “They’ve had their say on that,” the adviser said.
If you read Democratic political websites, letters to the editor, etc. Gonzales has been indeed lambasted by Democrats. But he also seems like a nominee that could squeek through, depending partially on his job performance in his present job.
Yet a Gonzales nomination could trigger internal dissension among GOP activists, some of whom have warned the White House against naming the attorney general. At a meeting of conservative groups last week to plot strategy for a possible Supreme Court nomination, one leader spoke out against a Gonzales appointment, according to people in the room.
Some of the groups share that concern,” said Jan LaRue, chief counsel for the Concerned Women for America, who attended the session. While she noted that her organization has not taken a position, she predicted that if Gonzales is chosen, some activists “may not as vigorously support” the nomination, while Roberts or Luttig “would certainly have broader support across the coalition of conservatives.”
“Everyone in my circle crinkles their nose when his name comes up,” another activist said of Gonzales. “It would be a disaster if that happened.”
And, indeed, this White House has been quite sensitive to nose-crinkling on the part of conservatives. So perhaps, in the end, it’ll hold its nose and bypass the man who apparently is Bush’s sentimental favorite to once again govern by opting to put top priority on playing to the GOP’s conservative base.
Some Other Views:
—James Joyner:
Gonzales makes no sense as a Chief Justice appointment. He’s the worst of all worlds: a bruising confirmation battle plus a weakening of Bush’s ideological position on the Court. Rehnquist’s replacement would ideally be Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas, a known quantity who, while controversial, would ultimately win and guide the Court in the right direction. Failing that, a younger conservative judge from one of the Circuit Courts of Appeal makes sense. If Bush is set on appointing Gonzales, it would be more appropriate to wait for the retirement of Sandra Day O’Connor or John Paul Stevens.
—Sidesshow:”White House sources allege that Bush is still considering Alberto “Torture-boy” Gonzales to replace William Rehnquist on the Supreme Court…. Don’t you just love it when Republicans speak for the Democrats? Someone ought to ask the Dem leadership if they’re happy to have the Bush cabal mapping out their roll-over-and-die strategy for them.”
—Corrente:”Surely not! But Bush just floated a trial balloon…Great work, Dems who voted for Gonzales! Yeah, I’m talking to you, Joe “I think he’s a pretty solid guy” Biden…See how you should never, ever give Bush the benefit of a doubt? Of course, we said a year ago that Bush was just parking Gonzales at Justice. So how come the Beltway’s so surprised and all now?”
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.