It has finally begun.
The long awaited battle for the political soul (figuratively and — to some — literally) of the U.S. Supreme Court is now underway.
When President Bush picked John G. Roberts Jr., a federal appeals court judge, as nominee to fill the first Supreme Court slot of his presidency, it was the moment Bush’s supporters (especially social conservative supporters) had waited and prayed for, the moment Democrats’ long dreaded, and the event that had been dismissed by Ralph Nader and his supporters who had insisted there was no real difference between the two parties anyway. As we’ve said here before, it was classic case of chickens coming home to roost.
It was a dramatic day in which Bush’s announcement caught many off guard, since other names had surfaced earlier — and most people had been expecting a woman to be named:
In a nationally televised ceremony in the East Room of the White House, Bush hailed Roberts, 50, as a man of “superb credentials and the highest integrity.”
He said Roberts, a conservative former White House and Justice Department official in past Republican administrations who currently serves on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, is “widely admired for his intellect, his sound judgment and his personal decency.” Bush said he had been “deeply impressed” by Roberts in his search for a successor to Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who is retiring.
“He is a man of extraordinary accomplishment and ability,” Bush said. “He has a good heart. He has the qualities Americans expect in a judge,” including wisdom, fairness and civility.
Roberts said in brief remarks that it was “both an honor and very humbling to be nominated to serve on the Supreme Court.” He said that in arguing past cases before the Supreme Court as an attorney, he developed a deep appreciation for its role in American democracy and always “had a lump in my throat” as he walked up the building’s steps.
GWB also once had a big lump in his throat, but it was a pretzel… If you read the full text of the President’s remarks it’s notable that Bush stresses what he says was the strong bipartisan support Roberts enjoyed in the past. Meanwhile, one of the most eyebrow-raising parts of this Washington Post piece is this:
Some Republican strategists said the nomination could help the White House divert attention from the Rove scandal and reinvigorate his political prospects.
Why talk of political revival? As the New York Times notes, the Democrats have not reacted so far with howls of outrage — which is NOT to say Roberts will get their support..but there may be less blood on the Senate floor than initially expected:
Democrats were generally restrained in their reaction, promising the judge a fair hearing but expressing the hope that he would be more frank in his answers than he was two years ago, when he was nominated for the D.C. court….
If confirmed, Judge Roberts might tilt the balance of the court rightward. Justice O’Connor, who has been on the tribunal for 24 years and was the first woman on the Supreme Court, was widely regarded as a swing justice between the liberal and conservative blocs.
And the issue — you guessed it — of abortion is already paramount:
The abortion-rights organization Naral immediately came out against the nomination. “If Roberts is confirmed to a lifetime appointment, there is little doubt that he will work to overturn Roe v. Wade,” the organization said, referring to the 1973 Supreme Court decision that affirmed a woman’s right to abortion.
“As deputy solicitor general under the first President Bush, he argued to the Supreme Court that ‘Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled,’ ” Naral said in its statement.
And here, the AP notes, is a response Roberts, a former clerk for Chief Justice William Rehnquist, once gave on this issue:
In his defense, Roberts told senators during his 2003 confirmation hearing that he would be guided by legal precedent. “Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. … There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent.”
Senator Harry Reid issued a cautious statement — NOT a declaration of war, or of support:
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat who had urged Bush to offer a “consensus nominee,” said, “I will not pre-judge this nomination.”
“The president has made his choice,” Reid said. “Now the Senate will do its job of deciding whether to confirm John Roberts to a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court.”
…Roberts was confirmed in 2003 by the full Senate without any recorded opposition to a seat on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.But Democrats said a nomination to the Supreme Court means he will face more questions.
“It is a whole new ballgame,” said Sen. Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat who sits on the Judiciary Committee that will hold confirmation hearings, likely in September.
Here are some of our thoughts:
- CHANCES: Unless there is some fiery, smoking gun he’ll probably eventually be confirmed.
- DEMOCRATS may and will oppose him on issues but the bottom line is that Bush did indeed promise to appoint a conservative if he was elected. Roberts — so far — doesn’t seem to be quite the kind of red-flag nominee that would trigger a massive firestorm. (But the week is still young). The Democratic leadership may conclude that they need to save an no-holds-barred (read that filibuster) opposition in case Bush appoints someone more to the right than Roberts.
- HIS BACKGROUND: His every word, statement and attitude will be explored and if he’s wise he’ll answer.
- BUSH’S FUTURE COURSE: Will this mean that GWB will feel he has paid a debt to social conservatives and appoint his friend Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for the next slot (perhaps Chief Justice)?
- ABORTION seems on life support in legal terms.
- THE MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR: Roberts doesn’t have any silly mustache or a beard you just wish you could grab and gleefully shave off so he’s not going to be hampered by THIS vital factor.
And others? MSNBC’s Tim Curry believes Roberts will be confirmed. Read it all but here’s part:
Here’s why the odds are very much against that and here is why he is likely to be confirmed: Roberts is Mr. Establishment. When he was nominated for the appeals court for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2003, he was praised by Walter Dellinger and Seth Waxman — two former solicitors general in the Clinton administration. And, Roberts is respected by the Washington legal establishment as one of the very best Supreme Court advocates of the present day.
I specifically asked Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn. about John Roberts and Judge Michael McConnell last Wednesday.
Were they, in Lieberman’s view, mainstream conservatives who could be confirmed?
Here is what Lieberman said: “They’d be in the ballpark…. Obviously if they were nominated for the Supreme Court you’d go into their records in a lot more detail, but those are two good examples.�
In other words: he hasn’t been someone who (up to this point at least) gets the partisan juices and demonization machines going. But as you can see here he is a kind of journeyman conservative on the issues and definitely will be under fire for his position on abortions.
Bottom line: this may not be the Life and Death Battle In The Senate (that could come later).
BUT THAT’S JUST OUR VIEW. HERE’S A CROSS SECTION OF OPINION AND ROUNDUP FROM OTHER WEB LOGS. LINKS ARE NOT LIMITED TO ONE VIEWPOINT.
—Glenn Reynolds aka Instapundit has an excellent roundup which includes sites that have extensive roundups and he writes: “Just watched Bush’s intro, followed by the Leahy / Schumer response. Bush was smirking; he thinks he’s got it in the bag. More significantly, perhaps, Leahy and Schumer looked pretty flat; they seemed to be going through the motions; I don’t think they believe they can stop him. That could change of course, but it’s certainly how it looks now.”
–The always original The Talking Dog has a post that must be read in full. A taste 4 U:
Well, well. I’m disappointed. I wanted to see a fire-breathing maniac with identical views to Roberts, like, say, his new benchmate, Janice Brown. Or maybe the torture-meister, “Moderate” (on abortion, the only issue of relevance!) Alberto “Abu” Gonzales. But noooo…… Well, the religious right gets its man: Roberts is a committed foe of legalized abortion (ignore what he says on the subject, and just look at his life, as a Rehnquist clerk, a deputy solicitor general, a Bush-Cheney supporter., etc., etc.)
To be honest, I think it’s about time the Republicans finally got what they wanted on this one (and have to face the voters!): they have been winning national presidential elections helped largely by deft positioning on abortion (5-3 ahead) since Roe became law in 1973, including, quite frankly, the last two. Taking Roe off the table once and for all will force Democrats to actually think about other things, and realize that this is an issue that really should be in the hands of the states. It has been an albatross for liberals for decades. Let the battle be fought in state legislatures, once and for all, where it belongs, and not in Congress and most especially not in presidential elections.
—Red State has a bunch of posts and links. One of the most interesting quotes is here:
Already there is talk about a filibuster, but I think the Dems see the writing on the wall and do not want to risk losing the filibuster over Roberts when they know that Roe cannot be overturned with just this appointment. The Dems will save that hoping there are no liberal vacancies until 2007, with a hopefully increased Senate majority. Says one Democrat aide, “With Elizabeth Dole in charge of the NRSC, we feel like we stand a shot at reducing Republican numbers there. Check out our Senate fundraising.”
A Republican political strategist tells me that this pick will further energize the Republican base with the ongoing talk that Stevens might retire before George Bush leaves office. Conservatives love Bush tonight. Make no mistake about it. Certain conservative leaders, if they were not men, would be offering to bear further children for GWB tonight. They love Roberts.
(TMV asks: Bear children? Isn’t Ann Coulter available? Close your eyes, Laura!)
–Mathew at Centerfield:”This is clearly not the nomination in the mold of Sandra Day O’Conner that I would have liked, but I will say that if the President wants a conservative ideologue on the court, I am glad John Roberts is the choice. I think undeniably he is qualified for the job. Roberts is extremely well respected, incredibly intelligent, and has the experience as a Circuit Judge, an attorney who very successfully argued cases in front of the Supreme Court, and a Law Clerk to then Associate Justice Rehnquist. Roberts, IMO, has the potential to bring some much needed intellectual consistency to the current court.”
–The always lively (and growing as fast as Subway restaurants) Crooks and Liars offers a video of Schumer’s reaction and a compact but must-read round-up.
—Justin Delabar:
I’d venture a guess that the social conservative base on this matter isn’t interested in an easy battle with a candidate that holds a consensus due to a wobbly stand on Roe. The very fact that some Democrats are commending the selection is enough to give a number of social conservatives pause. Certainly, someone more moderate than Roberts could have been selected, but an actual far-right radical could have been put up, as well, and only then would have I considered the nomination truly for the conservative base. Then again, Rehnquist is certain to go soon, which may afford the administration some leeway with its key supporters over Roberts.
—Michelle Malkin has a VERY comprehensive and readable roundup. REQUIRED READING.
—Americablog has a lot of posts but here’s a key one and part of it:”The more I read and the more I hear about Bush’s Supreme Court nominee, the more this guy sounds like a partisan hack. His experience is in politics, partisan politics, it’s not being a judge. Hell, he’s only been a judge for 2 years. That’s hardly the kind of experience that prepares you to be a Supreme Court justice. What Roberts has experience in is being a partisan political operative, the very thing you don’t want on the Supreme Court.”
—Citizen Smash aka The IndePundit (and he does march to his own political drummer) has several posts as well but in this one he writes in part that “the general consensus with the conservative crowd is that Roberts will be relatively easy to get through the Senate. They are downright giddy about the selection. That’s not to say that Schumer, Kennedy, et al won’t put up a fight, but nobody expects them to be able to defeat or filibuster Roberts. It should be entertaining, but barring any unpleasant suprises the outcome is not in doubt.”
—Bogus Gold predicts this about the Democrats:
The Democrats will complain:1.Though consulted, they were not sufficiently engaged in the selection process.2. The nominee is too extreme.3. When the confirmation vote finally occurs, they will claim to have not been provided sufficient information to cast an informed vote.
…. This isn’t about principled opposition. It’s not about judicial philosophy. It’s purely reactionary, and therefore entirely predictable.
Look, I was realistic. I wasn’t pushing for a liberal or even moderate candidate. Even Gonzales, my pick, is only a “relative” moderate. And I likely would have been willing to accept someone like Luttig, or maybe even Clement. (See here for what I wrote at Daily Kos not too long ago.) It might be too early to judge Roberts, but he is, as Wolf Blitzer just said, “a rock-solid conservative”. I’d call him a right-wing radical. Bush could have gone a number of different ways, but this one’s clearly for the base.
Well done, Mr. President. You continue to be a divider, not a uniter. And it looks like your “legacy” is more important than your country.
—Daily Kos’ namesake thinks the administration moved very swiftly on this to break the negative newsflow and pressures from Rovegate. He adds:
The future of the Supreme Court is at stake, and these guys will even truncate that process for short-term political gain. Par for the course.
So who is this guy Roberts? He has only two years of judicial experience, and his legal advocacy can be dismissed as doing the bidding of his bosses.
Fair enough. I’m willing to hear the guy out. We’re not going to get a Ginsburg, but I’d be happy with an O’Connor-style moderate conservative. For all we know (and for all the religious-right knows), Roberts might be that sort of guy. But he has to be honest and forthcoming, unlike his previous confirmation hearing.
—Kevin Drum also links to a story indicating that, yes, the timetable WAS moved up to take attention from the Rove scandal (and likely George Bush’s major flip flop on firing leakers). He writes:”Bush will have to produce something more compelling than a partisan hack like Roberts if he wants to distract us from the leaking elephant in the room and the ever-deepening puddle forming around its ankles–especially if it turns out that Rove lied to the FBI.”
—Blogs for Bush’s Matt Margolis has a MONSTER roundup with tons of updates. His personal reaction:”I think Bush made a great choice. By nominating Judge Roberts, the conservative base is galvanized, and while we’ll see some grandstanding from the Democrats, they won’t be able to block this nominee. Conservatives are happy tonight. The American people and the Constitution are also big winners tonight.”
—The Debate Link has a must-read post. Dave Schraub has done his homework. A small part of what he says:
What little I know of Judge Roberts comes from personal testimonials…When presented with a four person “short list” of nominees, I ranked Roberts second, behind McConnell but ahead of Luttig and Wilkinson. Much of that has to do with my conversations with Georgetown Law Professor Richard Lazarus, Roberts’ law school classmate and certainly no Republican. Orin Kerr, another man I respect highly, also gave Roberts the thumbs up. Like Joseph Weisenthal, “if it’s good enough for Orin Kerr and Juan non-Volokh…then it’s good enough for me!” Ultimately, he strikes me as a conservative non-ideologue. I can accept that mix.
–Pennywit (who always lives up to the last part of his name) offers these VITAL questions you won’t hear at Roberts’ confirmnation hearing.
–The always comprehensive The Political Teen has SEVERAL posts that are vital due to the links and videos such as this, this and this (explore that whole site yourself and you’ll see).
–The centrist blog The Yellow Line:”Roberts is conservative but nothing in his record reveals him to be outside the right side of the modern mainstream. There will be a fight in the wings over Roberts. But I think he’ll make it through the Senate without any deafening battles. This was an astute choice by President Bush. It appeases his base but won’t send the Senate into crisis.”
—The Queen of Evil (and no, that is not Hillary, to our conservative readers who do not normally read blogs):”President Bush has nominated conservative jurist John Roberts to the Supreme Court. I guess those who thought it would be a token woman were wrong. A big plus, he is only 50.”
—Wonkette:
Shorter Bush nominating speech: “Fooled you all, didn’t I? Didn’t I? [Cackle, cackle, snort] Also, hey, Al: I never liked you that much.”
Shorter Roberts acceptance speech: “I hope Democratic senators will be swayed by my free admission to having fathered my own children. And it helps that I look like Pat Sajak.”
—And talk about NOT doing BLOGSPEAK? Just READ IN FULL Stephen Green’s own, original thoughtful (not a line that sounds like talk radio) analysis (better than a post). A small part:
From what I’ve read Roberts is against reining in police power, except for when he isn’t. He doesn’t seem to believe in the broad application of government power, except for when he does. He may or may not support abortion rights, but if he does, he doesn’t do so in the context of Roe v Wade – unless, that is, he does.
In short, Roberts is a cipher. While no one seems to doubt his intellectual or forensic abilities, how he’d actually rule from the bench is a mystery.
Bush got what he wanted – a Supreme Court nominee too unobjectionable to be filibustered. I wonder if Bush knows to be careful about getting what he wished for.
—BOP News has a post titled: “It’s War” that reads in part:”Make Bork a footnote to Roberts. Bury Roberts so deep that Constitution in Exile archeologists are still hunting for his judicial bones a hundred years from now.”
—Chris Bowers:
Karl Rove is a lifetime Republican operative. John Roberts has been filing briefs and providing legal support for recounts (Roberts worked for Bush-Cheney 2000 in Florida, and he also worked with Ken Star) on behalf of Republicans for two decades. John Roberts is a partisan hack taking the heat for another partisan hack. He has only been a judge for two years. He has been a partisan Republican hack for twenty years.
The Bush administration was elected by the Supreme Court, and now it is now trying to elect a member of its campaign team to the Supreme Court in order to deflect attention away from ethics violations by the head of its campaign team, Karl Rove. This is partisan hackery at its best. The Bush administration has decided to treat the Supreme Court as an ambassadorship.
—Ron Beasley:”OK folks, we knew in November we were going to get a SCOTUS nomininee we didn’t like. We may not like Judge Roberts but he will be confirmed. More unknowns than knowns about the guy, an advantage for him.”
—James Joyner:”From what I’ve read, Roberts appears to be a solid conservative and he’s young, good qualities in a nominee. Beyond that, I know little of Roberts beyond a bit I’ve seen in the news and have nothing of much substance to add to the discussion. That may change during the confirmation battle.”
–The Vokokh Conspiracy’s Orin Kerr:”He’s an inspired choice. Robert is probably the best Supreme Court litigator of his generation, and is considered a total star within the DC legal community (on both sides of the aisle). Bravo.”
—The MUSC Tiger:”Let the mud slinging begin. Oh…and the blog swarm too… I predict he’ll be too conservative for approximately 30% of this country. Another 30% will say he’s perfect. 40% of this country won’t care. Maybe I’m being too generous with those percentages.”
—The Old Whig (no relation to William Shatner):”Wikipedia says he’s a moderate. Which worries me some, as I said while signing Townhall.com’s petition. That makes anyone who opposes him an extremist, right?”
—Ezra Klein:
…I wondered why everyone was calling Edith Clement Brown “Clement” rather than “Brown”. As it turned out, her name is “Edith Brown Clement”. Happily, none of this matters because she’s not the nominee. A non-Hispanic, non-female, white man is. More specifically, it’s John G. Roberts Jr. What do we know? Well-connected lawyer. Liked by Democrats. Long conservative pedigree. Non-Scalia temperament. Friend to business. Social conservative. Well-respected judicially. Has represented some interesting clients, including the 19 states that sued Microsoft for anti-trust violations. But I’m not the go-to guy on this, they follow below:
And he GIVES you a ton of links to visit — and ponder. Must read.
—Mahablog:”First, it’s obvious the nomination was moved up to pull attention away from Karl Rove. But the picture of John Roberts that’s emerging is of a loyal water-carrier for the GOP rather than a brilliant jurist.”
—GayPatriot:”The Human Rights Campaign’s pro-abortion, GayLeftist president Joe Solomonese says that Supreme Court Justice John Roberts is anti-gay and will oppose him. I am completely shocked! (sarcasm off). Joe’s conclusion comes after the concession by himself that Judge Roberts has no record on GLBT issues…. but he MUST be anti-gay because President Bush nominated him, right?”
—Captain Ed has detailed reactions to the day’s events as they unfolded with fascinating analysis. His prediction:”My prediction: we will see a Bolton-style stall tactic, where the Democrats demand more and more documentation from prior cases, and then filbuster when the White House finally balks. The Democrats started this tactic during Miguel Estrada’s confirmation hearings.”
—TalkLeft has a CRUCIAL post for those who feel everyone on the left is jumping on this nomination. This MUST be read in its entirety, but we’ll give you a HIGHLY edited taste:
I think it’s too soon to start opposing Judge John G. Roberts. Most of us knew nothing about him before tonight…..I’d like to know more about him before I make up my mind. I don’t think it helps that liberal groups are coming out swinging so soon. It has the appearance that they would oppose anyone Bush would nominate.
I’m more worried about Bush’s second pick, the one he will make when Chief Justice Rehnquist retires, when his key aides may be out from under the gun of, or already indicted by, Fitzgerald’s grand jury.
I do not want to fall into the Administration’s trap of getting so distracted by this judicial nomination that I don’t pay attention to other injustices of the Administration, like the war in Iraq, the detainees, military tribunals, the potential abolition of habeas corpus in death cases, and Rove Gate, to name a few.
—The Left Coaster has a similar post (again we’ll offer you a chunk but read the whole thing if you like it):
All I can say is that I am actually relieved that Bush didn’t fulfill my worst fears and select a real knuckle-dragger. And for those of you who fear that he will just do so when he gets his next chance, trust me: the way the polls are headed, this was his chance to put a card-carrying member of the American Taliban on the court, and he passed. There will be no other chance.
We don’t have to wage a fight against a Hispanic nominee that would do us damage next year.We don’t have to wage a fight against a female nominee that would do us damage next year. We don’t have to wage a fight against a black nominee that would do us damage next year.
Be glad for all three of these things. Instead, Bush went with a pick that his dad would have made. Keep that in mind as a sign of how weakened this White House is right now that they went with someone his dad would have nominated instead of trying to ram through a James Dobson annointee.
—Powerline says the Democrats will have little case to make against Roberts. Here’s part of the post that should be read completely:
So the left has very little to work with in trying to rouse public opposition to Roberts’ nomination. That leaves only one alternative: they will ask lots of questions. This theme has already emerged. They will try to force Roberts to take a loyalty oath to the liberal decisions of which contemporary Democrats are fondest. And, as Chuck Schumer said tonight, they will proceed on the assumption that “the burden is on the nominee to prove he is worthy,” not on the Democrats to prove he isn’t. So the Dems will try to dream up questions that Roberts can’t properly answer, and documents they can request that can’t be provided, relating, perhaps to Roberts’ service as deputy solicitor general.
Nevertheless, barring some stunning and unforeseen revelation, the outcome is not in doubt. The Democrats simply don’t have anything to work with. And, thankfully, they are a minority in the Senate.
—Right Wing News has a big roundup of reaction from leftist blogs to the Roberts nomination. John Hawkins writes:”Personally, I’m thrilled with Bush’s selection of Roberts, who I think will be another Rehnquist. I feel like a little kid who got a puppy, a BB gun, and a bike for Christmas when he was just expecting another sweater. This is a good day for conservatism my friends, a very good day…”
–Centrist Republican Charging Rhino’s reaction needs to b read in its entirety, but heres’s a small part of it:
Would I have preferred a nominee of a more centrist/pragmatic/moderate stripe? You bet. Did I expect one from this president? Hardly. What I do know is, we could have gotten a much more divisive choice than John Roberts, someone with a long track record of conservative activism and a mediocre intellectual record. I may not agree with every one of Roberts’ decisions from the bench, but his academic background is impeccable, and if confirmed I believe he will raise the level of intellectual dialogue on the Court.
As a centrist Republican, I can’t say that I feel betrayed by this nomination. The president ran, both in 2000 and 2004, saying that he was going to appoint justices like Scalia and Thomas. That was part (but only part) of the reason that I did not vote for him in either election. But many others did vote for him, and as much as I might have preferred a different result, those elections do have consequences. The president is fulfilling a pledge, and I actually think that the choice of Roberts is about as far from Scalia and Thomas as we could have hoped he would go. Roberts is not the ideologue who would have been favored by many on the right who were hoping for a nuclearizing choice like Bill Pryor, Priscilla Owen, or Janice Rogers Brown.
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.