Washington – Senate Democrats face conflicting pressures as John Roberts’ nomination as chief justice advances, prodded by liberal groups to oppose the appointment yet considering whether a vote in favor might temper President Bush’s choice for a second Supreme Court vacancy.
“In three days of testimony, Judge Roberts gave no reason for optimism that he would vote to uphold a woman’s right to choose,” the National Women’s Law Center said in a memo circulated Monday, part of a sustained effort by liberal groups to maximize Democratic opposition to the nomination.
The Senate Judiciary Committee is to vote on Roberts on Thursday, and the decisions made by the panel’s eight Democrats – including two members of the party’s leadership – will provide the first indication of whether the 50-year-old appeals-court judge and former Reagan administration lawyer can command significant bipartisan support.
Whatever Democrats decide, Roberts’ confirmation to succeed the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist is all but secured, given widespread, possibly unanimous support among the Senate’s 55 Republicans.
Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, who presided over confirmation hearings as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, underscored the depth of the GOP support during the day when he formally announced his plans to support the nominee. “Most importantly, Judge Roberts’ answers demonstrated that he would take a fair, nonideological approach to the law,” Specter said.
A supporter of abortion rights, Specter also said he came away from the hearings without a clear indication of whether Roberts would vote to sustain or overturn the 1973 landmark Supreme Court ruling that established a woman’s right to end her pregnancy.
Thus far, all 44 Senate Democrats have remained publicly neutral on the nomination, acceding to the request of the party’s leader, Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, to avoid commitments until hearings were completed.
Several Democrats have noted that Roberts possesses undeniable legal skills.
Additionally, with Bush beginning to consult with Congress on a replacement for Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, there are other factors.
One Democrat who is close to the Judiciary Committee said the issue broke down this way: If the nominee to replace O’Connor is going to be more conservative than Roberts, and more controversial, would it be better to have seven or eight Democratic votes in favor of Roberts or to have 30 or 35?
A second Democrat said part of the calculation reflected the view of some senators that Bush may shrink from confrontation when he fills the second vacancy, at a time when public support for the war in Iraq is dwindling and his overall public approval is at the lowest point of his presidency.
Yet a third said some Democratic senators argue that they will be in a better political position to oppose a second, more conservative nominee if they have voted for Roberts.
One Democratic strategist with long experience in senatorial campaigns dismissed such claims.
“Never once have Democrats benefited from attempts at reasonableness and compromise and accommodation,” said Jim Jordan, former executive director of the party’s senatorial committee. “To the contrary, Bush and his team seem to view political compromise as weakness, and they punish it rather than reward or reciprocate it.”
