Washington – Conservative groups confronted President Bush with a groundswell of opposition this weekend against nominating his attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, to the Supreme Court, warning that doing so would splinter conservative support.
At least one prominent Latino evangelical group urged Bush to name another Hispanic candidate, Emilio Garza, a federal appeals judge from Texas.
Within hours after Justice Sandra Day O’Connor announced her retirement, members of conservative groups around the country convened in different combinations in five national conference calls, in which many participants said they shared their concerns about Gonzales, whose opposition to abortion they regard as suspect.
Late last week, a delegation of conservative lawyers led by C. Boyden Gray and former Attorney General Edwin Meese – and including Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the evangelical American Center for Law and Justice, and Leonard Leo, a top official of the Federalist Society and director of Republican outreach to Catholics – met with White House chief of staff Andrew Card to voice similar views, according to allies who were briefed afterward.
On Friday, the Rev. Miguel Rivera, president of the National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders, an advocacy group that represents more than 6,000 Latino evangelical churches, sent the president a letter urging consideration of “a true conservative Latino nominee”: Garza.
In a telephone interview late Friday, Rivera said he had so far received no response.
“All the meetings we have had in all the different groups today we have not heard anything to reassure us that he is out of the loop,” Rivera said of Gonzales.
James Dobson, founder of Colorado Springs-based Focus on the Family, has already opposed Gonzales, citing Gonzales’ statements about setting aside the Constitution at times, according to Tom Minnery, an official with the ministry. He said a separate Focus-related group, Focus on the Family Action, will crank up its Supreme Court efforts once a nominee has been named.
The flurry of concern over Gonzales was just one sign of the conflicting forces that face Bush, who was at Camp David for the holiday weekend, with his aides having declared he would not announce any decision before the end of this week.
Republicans and Democrats agreed on the importance of the appointment for Bush’s legacy, though they differed sharply – and predictably – over what kind of nominee he should choose.
“I think this is the Rubicon for Bush,” said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., a member of the Judiciary Committee.
“This will determine not only the second term of his presidency, but how he goes down as a president.
“Does he continue to use his usual MO, which is ‘make the base happy’? Or does he take a bold stroke and say, ‘I’m going to be a moderate conservative, more conciliatory president?”‘
Senate Democrats demanded that he consult them before making a choice and appoint a pragmatist in O’Connor’s mold.
And conservatives, flexing their muscles in a battle they have spent a decade preparing for, described the nomination as a test of Bush’s ideological convictions, and his biggest opportunity yet to assure that his presidency will leave a conservative stamp for a generation to come.
Among the names most frequently mentioned as likely candidates, besides Gonzales and Garza, are Judges J. Harvie Wilkinson III and J. Michael Luttig of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va.; Judge John G. Roberts Jr., who sits on the federal appeals court in Washington; and Judge Mi chael W. McConnell of the Denver- based 10th Circuit, who lives in Salt Lake City.
Should Bush consider a woman, the most likely candidates are Judges Edith Brown Clement and Edith H. Jones, both of the 5th Circuit, based in New Orleans.
Bush planned to spend the weekend getting a head start on “homework” on a list of potential nominees, and expected to “be on the phones with his advisers,” said a senior administration official who spoke on condition of anonymity.
He said the president had been briefed on his staff’s preparations for a court vacancy, and that “he knows the orbit of names.”
Other White House aides said they had canceled holiday plans to prepare for a fight whose dimensions and intensity would be, to a considerable extent, dictated by the nominee Bush settles on.
Asked how much of an internal debate there was about which way to go, the anonymous White House official responded: “The team has put together a good list of people.”
Members of Congress and conservatives close to the White House said they are confident Bush will use the first Supreme Court vacancy of his presidency to nominate a judge in the mold of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, as he repeatedly promised during the campaign.
“They don’t need me lobbying on this stuff – they know what to do,” said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, a conservative group with close ties to the White House. “My only recommendation is that they nominate someone who is 12 or 13 years old” to ensure as long a conservative legacy as possible.
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, a veteran and former chair of the Judiciary Committee, which will hold hearings on any nominee, said flatly of Bush: “He’s going to appoint a conservative. I have no doubt about that.”
For many conservatives, who have seen Republican presidents nominate Supreme Court justices like O’Connor who then vote against them on key issues, Gonzales epitomizes the fear of the unknown.
Even at a time of unprecedented influence in Washington, many conservative leaders have become restive at their comparative lack of sway on the court and have described the selection of the next justice as the most important decision Bush will make – even if he has to force it through at the expense of his ambitious second-term agenda.
Some Republicans warned that a very conservative nomination by Bush would guarantee a protracted Senate battle that could well doom any hope Bush has of pushing through a Social Security or tax reform bill, two key initiatives of his second term.
American University historian Allan J. Lichtman says naming an extremely conservative nominee could backfire on the president because it might prompt Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, a moderate conservative who also has been a swing vote on the court, to inch away from the right.
“That could push Kennedy into the O’Connor slot,” Lichtman said.
