As the world turns its attention to the tragic and troubling events in London, another event is unfolding: gearing up by the White House and GOP to face a unique opportunity and political risk: filling two Supreme Court seats:
A week after Justice Sandra Day O’Connor announced her retirement, the White House and its allies are preparing for the possibility that Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist might soon follow suit, opening up a second vacancy to fill and scrambling the politics of this summer’s brewing nomination battle.
Talk of a possible Rehnquist retirement has reached full boil again as Republican strategists mapped out plans for how to tackle a double nomination. Advisers inside and outside the White House are discussing how to select two potential nominees, how they might match or balance each other and how to sequence their confirmation hearings.
If the Democrats thought they’re facing a dilemma, the GOP and White House elite are facing a bigger one because who they now choose for these two seats can change the political dynamics in Congress and out. The Washington Post report goes on to say:
“We’re prepared for every contingency,” said a senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because Rehnquist has made no announcement. “If it’s multiple candidates, we’ll be ready.”
If Rehnquist decides to step down, President Bush will have the opportunity to put a decisive personal stamp on a closely divided Supreme Court that has seen no turnover for the past 11 years. Such a scenario would almost certainly escalate the high-decibel, high-dollar political showdown both sides already expect.
Twin vacancies would present Bush with an intriguing choice: Does he use the opportunity to appoint two reliable conservatives who would shift the court away from what he sees as improper judicial activism on divisive issues such as abortion, religion in public life and gay rights? Or does he try to balance competing impulses by filling one seat with a conservative who would strictly interpret the Constitution and the other with his friend, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, who is less favored by the right but would be the first Hispanic on the nation’s highest court?
“If we get a second vacancy, then there’s just a lot up for grabs,” said Gary L. Bauer, a prominent Christian conservative leader who ran for president in 2000. “It would mean a tremendous battle.”
Just as some Democrats can be counted on to oppose any conservative nominee, Bush’s conservative base can be counted on to furiously — and angrily — resist any attempt to put anyone on the court who does not pass their litmus tests.
The Chicago Tribune notes that Bush’s dream come true could be a bit
thornier in reality:
But Bush’s reward may come at a big cost, as his second-term legislative agenda, already facing major obstacles, is likely to founder while the Senate focuses on one or two furious confirmation battles.
“Legislators have a limited attention span,” said Darrell West, a Brown University political scientist. “They can deal with one big issue at a time, and the court battle is going to be so ferocious it’s going to suck all the oxygen out of the system. There’s not going to be room for discussion of anything else.”
Likely to fall by the wayside, the Tribune predicts: social security and immigraton reform. And the prospect of significant achievements will likely dimnish the closer the calender gets to the 2006 elections, the Tribune notes.
CNN notes that corporate American is letting the White House and GOP elite know its favorite choices. Among them: John Roberts Jr., Edith Brown Clement and Janice Rogers Brown. All three are federal appeals court judges.
Meanwhile, there are all kinds of scenarios for the White House:
- Propose two judges social conservatives want and forget about Democratic opposition since it could be easily overcome. The party can eliminate the filibuster if it wants and some of the Senate moderates who came up with the agreement nixing the “nuclear option” on judicial nominees will not likely go along with objections made on the grounds of ideology alone. Downside: this would provide ammunition for the Democrats since the GOP would seem doing the bidding of one segment of the party. A danger of losing swing voters.
- Propose a hard-line conservative and one who social conservatives aren’t happy about such as Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Downside: this would upset social conservatives and other parts of the party base that want a strict constructionist nominee they they can count on to rule on issues in a specific way — versus someone who might possibly break with ideology on a case-by-case basis. They feel they’ve worked all these years for Bush specifically to bring about perceptible change on the Supreme Court.
- Find the most advantageous ways to time the announcements. If it’s two hard-line conservatives, that’s not a problem. If one of the nominees will be controversial (to the right or left) and the other less so, then the White House has to decide cost/loss benefits in which one is announced first.
Right now it would appear the White House has the most to lose if there is a misstep. The Democrats are expected to oppose (in some form) its nominees. The Democrats can only gain new electoral support in this fight by the way they look in battling the GOP. If they overreach and don’t effectively explain why they can lose some support. The White House and GOP, on the other hand, will be defined not only by the choices but by the perception of what forces within the GOP triumphed in the individual candidates’ selections. How the nominees are presented and how they’re gotten through the Senate will likely be important in terms of public support and Congressional support from Democrats for the rest of Bush’s term.
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.