The Pick Is In

By Mary Lynn F. Jones, AlterNet. Posted July 20, 2005.

In a surprise primetime announcement, President Bush named U.S. Appellate Court Judge John G. Roberts Jr. to succeed retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court, setting into motion the first Court nomination fight in 11 years.

As Roberts' nomination now heads to Capitol Hill, interest groups are expected to spend millions of dollars to influence senators and the public on the upcoming vote. That could make meeting Bush's deadline of seating the new justice by Oct. 3, when the court's next term begins, difficult.

Bush's announcement capped a day of uncertainty in Washington as rumors of potential nominees flew through the nation's capital. In his announcement, Bush called choosing a justice "one of the most consequential decisions a president makes," and praised Roberts as "one of the best legal minds of his generation." He noted that Roberts is "widely admired for his intellect, his sound judgment and his personal decency."

Roberts, who has served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit since 2003 and argued 39 cases before the Supreme Court, would be its youngest member at age 50. The Harvard Law School graduate clerked for Chief Justice William Rehnquist in 1980-'81 and has held positions in the Reagan and first Bush administrations.

Republican senators greeted Roberts' nomination enthusiastically. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) said in a statement that Roberts "is the kind of outstanding nominee that will make America proud." Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), a member of the Judiciary Committee who was considered a possible nominee himself, said Roberts is "an exceptional judge, brilliant legal mind and a man of outstanding character."

Democratic senators reacted more cautiously and promised a thorough confirmation process. Noting that a current nominee could serve until 2030 or later, Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) said, "No one is entitled to a free pass to a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court."

Senate Judiciary Committee member Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), who voted against Roberts in 2003, said many of Roberts' personal views on issues are unknown. Assistant Senate Democratic Leader Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) was more forceful, saying in a statement that by choosing Roberts rather than a nominee in the mold of O'Connor, Bush has "guaranteed a more controversial confirmation process."

While senators are expected to press Roberts for his views on issues such as abortion, gay marriage and affirmative action, Roberts is considered unlikely to cause the "Gang of 14" bipartisan senators to invoke the "extraordinary circumstances" part of their agreement that would allow them to filibuster Bush's judicial nominees. In replacing O'Connor, Roberts would succeed the justice who has voted with the 5-4 majority in more rulings since 1994 than any other member of the Court.

Elliot Mincberg, vice president and legal director for People for the American Way, said his group was disappointed with Bush's selection but added that it doesn't have a firm position on Roberts, given his short record as a judge. However, Mincberg called several of Roberts' positions as a judge and as the principal deputy solicitor general in the first Bush administration -- including his views on Roe v. Wade and the Endangered Species Act -- troubling. Roberts said in 2003 that he considers Roe "the settled law of the land" and was merely arguing for his client when he said in 1990 that Roe should be overturned.

"The next nominee could affect Americans' rights and liberties for the next 20, 30, 40 years," Mincberg said. "His judicial philosophy is absolutely critical."

In choosing Roberts, considered by experts a "legacy" nominee, Bush said he was looking for someone "who will not legislate from the bench." He rejected suggestions from several senators that he select someone with political rather than judicial experience, saying Monday, "I, of course, am the person that picks the nominee, and they get to decide whether or not the nominee gets confirmed." Bush also ignored advice offered by First Lady Laura Bush last week to choose a woman to succeed the nation's first female Supreme Court justice, and he decided against making history by naming the first Hispanic justice.

While the White House originally expected to nominate a successor to Rehnquist, who is battling thyroid cancer, rather than O'Connor, Bush moved speedily to name Roberts; in part to shift the summertime conversation in Washington from questions about which members of his administration outed undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame to reporters.

"A nomination would certainly change the momentum in Washington," former Reagan White House aide Ken Duberstein told The New York Times Tuesday.

Mary Lynn F. Jones is a Washington D.C.-based writer.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »