President Bush’s next selection for the U.S. Supreme Court could very well tilt the balance of an already divided court, meaning this pick carries even more weight than his first.
We urge the president to find a justice in the mold of retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, a common-sense jurist who had a knack for the equitable resolution. She was a pivotal vote on many of the issues that have divided the modern court, including abortion. O’Connor weighed the merits of each case and never behaved as if she was beholden to any particular interest group or ideology, or to a personal agenda. You never had the impression that Justice O’Connor felt she knew better than Congress or the Constitution.
Her successor could help overturn some long-standing legal precedents and move the court in a more conservative direction.
Bush seems to have scored with his first choice, Judge John Roberts, who is expected to be confirmed as the new chief justice as early as today. Roberts said at Senate confirmation hearings that he would hold the law above ideology and respect most legal precedents as the settled law of the land. He left many senators with the impression that he wouldn’t vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade, the controlling abortion precedent.
We all know Bush will select a conservative, but we urge him to pick someone who will represent America’s mainstream values, and not someone bound by the far fringe of right-wing ideology.
We also think it’s important that the president maintain the diversity of the court, giving due consideration to minority and female candidates. O’Connor’s departure leaves Ruth Bader Ginsburg as the sole female on the bench and Clarence Thomas as the only minority.
Given the gains minorities and women have made over the past generation, the president should have plenty of strong candidates to choose from. “Diversity is one of the strengths of the country,” the president said the other day.
The president will be under tremendous pressure from conservative members of his party, especially evangelical Christians who are so intent on overturning Roe and fuzzing the separation of church and state.
But he is hearing too from lawmakers and commentators who want someone in the O’Connor mode.
Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, one of at least 13 Democrats supporting Roberts, has urged the president to refrain from nominating someone who would be a “lightning rod” and represent just one segment of society. “We’re asking him in this case especially: Be a uniter. Don’t be a divider, for the sake of the country.”
Republican Sen. Arlen Specter, concerned about the balance of power between Congress and the court, wants Bush to wait until June so Americans can see what type of justice Roberts will be before picking O’Connor’s successor.
“I would like to hear that the president is going to maintain balance, that you have a very evenly divided court and that there are a great many issues that many people are worried about on both sides of the political spectrum,” he said.
Sen. Harry Reid, a pro-life Democrat from Nevada, wants Bush to pick someone like O’Connor. “Justice O’Connor has been a voice of reason and moderation on the court,” he said.
An extremist will fuel Senate passions and make all of us long for a civilized confirmation process such as the one accorded Roberts.
