To compliment his wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, self-appointed war President George W. Bush launched a political war at home (and possibly within his own family) last night by nominating conservative Judge John Roberts to replace moderate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor on the U.S. Supreme Court (instead of nominating a moderate or another woman – as his wife Laura openly favoured).
But one has to wonder why so many pundits were surprised that Bush nominated such a resolute conservative knowing that it would trigger political warfare. After all, just as he honored his word to take out the Taliban and Saddam Hussein – come what may, he has now honored his word to appoint a judge who shares his conservative moral, social (and political) views. And, fair enough….
President Bush introducing Judge John G. Roberts Jr. as his surprise (another WASC-man?) and deft choice for his first judicial appointment to the Supreme Court.
Judge Roberts is undoubtedly qualified for the job – especially given the standard set by Bush’s Daddy with his nomination of Clarence Thomas in 1991. His conservative Republican bona fides are beyond reproach. And, his near unanimous Senate confirmation just years ago as a Judge to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit looms as a shield against political counterattacks from Democrats who voted for him back then. Indeed, as far as political war strategy goes, Bush may have struck a fatal blow against his liberal adversaries with this nomination.
Nevertheless, one contentious line in the generally measured judicial opinions Judge Roberts has written will serve as the casus belli (clarion call to action) for liberals around the country. Moreover, it will galvanize Senate Democrats to not only filibuster but also shut down departments in the Executive branch of the U.S. government if that’s what it takes to defeat his nomination.
That line, extracted by zealous Democratic operatives from a legal brief Judge Roberts drafted for a 1991 abortion case entitled Russ v. Sullivan is:
We continue to believe that Roe v. Wade [the case which granted women abortion rights] was wrongly decided and should be overruled.
It will not matter to liberals that Judge Roberts wrote it as an advocate, not as a judge; or, that his purported deference to “settled precedent” should guarantee that his appointment does not portend the end of abortion rights. Because Senate Democrats gave fair notice that they will not allow any nominee to pass muster during confirmation hearings by uttering platitudes in response to their direct questions about legal opinions and judicial philosophy. Specifically, they warned that they will demand assurances that the nominee will not join the Court’s conservative cabal in reversing progressive rulings in cases concerning civil liberties – including the death penalty, police powers, religious practices, gay rights, affirmative action and, of course, abortion rights.
But just as liberals are likely to filibuster his nomination, conservatives are likely to deploy the dreaded “nuclear option” to overcome their filibuster. Therefore, despite Bush’s call for a dignified confirmation process, it’s only a matter of time before it descends into the nasty business of partisan political warfare. The outcome, however, will never be in doubt: Judge John Roberts will be confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court!
Note: Many Washington insiders speculate that Bush’s political guru Karl Rove had a Machiavellian hand in the selection of Judge Roberts and the timing of his announcement as the nominee. To be sure, his nomination fulfils a promise Rove made to the conservative activists whom he credited with crusading for critical votes to reelect President Bush. And, the timing deflects damning media attention from the normally stealth and prudent Rove who, until yesterday, was a front-page “piñata” for his compromising exposure in CIA leak-gate.)
So, here’s to killing two birds with one stone…or three (birds) if one counts the Democrats who will soon be fulminating about back-alley abortions, rolling back civil rights and other scaremongering prospects all in a vain attempt to score political hits against a nominee who seems the judicial equivalent of the teflon father of modern conservatism – former President Ronald Reagan.
At long last, liberals must realize that – in this “war for the hearts and souls of America” – filibustering judicial nominees is a flawed strategy. After all, the Constitution grants the president almost plenary power to appoint judges to the Supreme Court. And, the “advice and consent” clause does not grant Congress a veto over the exercise of that power – as liberal Senators Kennedy of MA and Schumer of NY evidently presume.
Indeed, if liberals fear that the appointment of conservative judges to the federal bench (especially the Supreme Court) will lead to the Talibanization of America, their only recourse is to do what Rove and his conservative cohorts did: organize grass roots campaigns to ensure that a liberal like Sen. Hillary Clinton is elected in 2008. And, who knows, perhaps she’ll nominate a disabled Hispanic lesbian (who shares her liberal values) to the Supreme Court to balance things out a little….
News and Politics
Anonymous says
i’ve read many articles on this nomination and this is by far the most interesting, informative and provocative (the Note section) of them all. i’m a fellow lawyer so this is no small praise. thanks
Anonymous says
I don’t trust him. I know he must have made it clear to Bush that he would vote against abortion at the first opportunity. Bush is packing the courts.
Anonymous says
Don’t rush to judgment folks. This guy seems really smart with a moral center and not like some rightwing nut job.