Washington – President Bush chose federal appellate court Judge John G. Roberts Jr., a brainy, fresh conservative face who argued dozens of cases before the Supreme Court as a lawyer for Republican administrations, to fill the seat of retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor on Tuesday.
Liberal groups announced their opposition, and Senate Democrats promised to scrutinize the nominee.
Of particular concern, they said, was the role Roberts played as deputy solicitor general for the first President Bush when he argued before the Supreme Court in 1991 that Roe vs. Wade, the case establishing abortion rights, “was wrongly decided and should be overruled.”
But in choosing the 50-year-old Roberts, instead of a conservative ideologue, Bush presented the Senate with a bright Harvard graduate of working-class roots whose nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit was approved by unanimous consent of the Senate in 2003 and whose short record on the bench will supply his foes with relatively little ammunition.
Barring an unexpected gaffe or revelation, Roberts will now go before the Republican-controlled Senate favored to win confirmation.
“He’s going to be a hard one to pin down because there’s no real smoking guns in anything he’s written or anything he’s said,” said Robert A. Destro, a professor at Catholic University of America’s law school in Washington. “There’s going to be a lot of lightning and thunder, but I don’t think that in the end they’re going to be able to come up with much on Judge Roberts.”
The initial reaction from the Senate did not speak of the kind of passionate intensity that will be required to defeat a Supreme Court nominee or sustain a filibuster.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., a leader of the so-called Gang of 14 senators who struck a deal to preserve the filibuster and give up-or-down votes on Bush judges barring extraordinary circumstances, said Roberts will bring “a wealth of experience to the nation’s highest bench.”
“I look forward to a smooth confirmation process and a swift up-or-down vote for Judge Roberts,” McCain said.
Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., a Democratic leader in the confirmation process, acknowledged that Roberts was neither a confrontational nor a consensus nomination to the Supreme Court. “He’s in the middle,” Schumer said.
But Schumer and other Democrats demanded that Roberts reveal his personal views on constitutional issues during the hearing process.
The White House, citing the precedent set by recent nominees, was just as determined that Roberts keep his opinion on abortion and other contentious issues to himself.
“The appropriate action is not to answer those kinds of questions,” said White House counsel Dan Bartlett.
Bartlett said that when Bush met with Roberts on Friday, the president did not press Roberts with “litmus test” questions and that neither should the Senate – a notion liberals rejected.
“The American people have the right not to confirm a blank slate,” said Elliot Mincberg, vice president and legal director of People For the American Way.
As a lawyer for the first Bush administration, and as an attorney in private practice for the firm of Hogan & Hartson, which has Colorado offices, Roberts argued more than three dozen cases before the high court, at all times representing his clients’ views and not necessarily his own.
In 1991, Roberts co-wrote a Supreme Court brief in the case of Rust vs. Sullivan, which argued that the government could prohibit doctors in federally funded family-planning programs from discussing abortions with patients.
The brief not only argued that the federal regulations were constitutional, but it also made the broader argument that Roe vs. Wade was wrongly decided – an argument unnecessary to defend the regulation. The Supreme Court sided with the government on the narrower grounds that the regulation was constitutional.
But in his 2003 confirmation hearings, Roberts called Roe vs. Wade “the settled law of the land,” adding, “There’s nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent.”
Nevertheless, NARAL Pro- Choice America president Nancy Keenan predicted that if Roberts is asked specific questions about Roe vs. Wade and his views are learned, “people will be voting against him.”
Liberal groups said the stakes are high.
“While Judge Roberts may not have been on the Rev. James Dobson’s short list of pre approved nominees, let’s be clear: John Roberts is no mainstream judge,” said Wade Henderson, executive director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, referring to the founder of Colorado’s Focus on the Family.
Little is certain, however, when it comes to Supreme Court vacancies. Justices O’Connor, John Paul Stevens, Anthony Kennedy and David Souter are all appointees of Republican presidents who dashed the hopes of abortion foes in the past.
Bush chose a high-profile, prime-time venue to announce the nomination, standing with Roberts in the East Room of the White House. He had called Roberts at midday to ask him to accept.
Earlier, the names of female jurists figured prominently in speculation about the nominee. Even first lady Laura Bush had publicly suggested a woman should replace O’Connor, the first female justice. And Latino groups had urged that Bush make a bit of history by appointing Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
At the East Room announcement, Bush praised the nominee and looked on approvingly as Roberts spoke briefly about how honored he felt to be named to the court where he had argued so many cases.
“I always got a lump in my throat whenever I walked up those marble steps to argue a case before the court, and I don’t think it was just from the nerves,” Roberts said.
Roberts clerked on the Supreme Court for then-Associate Justice William Rehnquist before working in the Reagan administration at the Justice Department and in the White House.
Roberts left government work during the Clinton administration. He received a $1 million salary from Hogan & Hartson in 2003, according to a financial disclosure filed in May 2004.
Senate leaders from both parties said they expected to have the new justice confirmed in time for the start of the court’s new term in October, with hearings and a vote in September.
Staff research librarian Regina Avila contributed to this report.
