By now most our readers are aware that the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee recommended the confirmation of John Roberts as Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. The news was welcomed by the majority of pro-life and pro-family organizations and looked upon as a victory by many conservatives.
However, press reports reflect the strategy by liberals and abortion supporters to use the current nomination process to establish a more favorable footing for the future battle over Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's replacement:
() Democrats voiced concerns about Roberts' commitment to civil rights and women's rights, based largely on memos he wrote as a young attorney two decades ago in the Reagan administration.From the beginning, Roberts confirmation was all but certain. He is respected by his peers from one end of the political spectrum to the other and has a sparse record on controversial issues such as abortion. In fact, several pro-life organizations question whether or not he will recognize the right of the unborn to life.() They also complained about his refusal at his confirmation hearing to disclose how he might rule on some hot-button legal issues, such as abortion rights.
() Others, including major liberal groups, contend Democrats should muster as much opposition as possible to send a message to Bush that in order to avoid a major fight he should send up a noncontroversial nominee.
The defamatory opposition to Roberts by pro-abortion extremists was aimed at changing the battle lines enabling a more influential position for their cause in future nomination hearings. It didnt matter who President Bush nominated for the Supreme Court, their course was already established and their reaction was planned.
Now having presented themselves as swallowing a bitter pill by acquiescing to Roberts nomination, liberals have made it clear that OConnors replacement must be a moderate who forthrightly supports abortion.
Yet, from a pro-life perspective, at the very best Roberts replacement for Rehnquist is a wash. Despite what liberals have claimed, the composition of the Court has not shifted to the right. Rehnquist opposed Roe v. Wade while Roberts view on the ruling is uncertain.
If the nominated replacement for OConnor is a "moderate", pro-abortion liberals will have successfully bullied a Republican President, backed by a Republican Senate majority, to compromise the principles they claimed to uphold when elected to office.
Now is not the time for Bush to seek common ground by reaching out to the opposition and nominating a "moderate" to the Supreme Court. The stakes are too high. In this age of judicial activism Bushs selection will impact our country for generations and may be the most important decision of his presidency.
If anything, OConnors replacement should be more conservative than Rehnquist, Thomas or Scalia. Pro-abortion liberals should be inflamed and respond with weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth. The press should be enraged and display gross indignation at Bushs outrageous conservative choice for the Supreme Court.
Yes, weak-kneed pro-abortion Republicans will be unmasked and whats left of Bushs political capital may be consumed. Democrats will filibuster and Republicans will use the nuclear option.
As I said, the stakes are high but the end result will be a court that will benefit America for decades to come.
Update: Sen. Sam Brownback agrees. "The next nominee should let the political branches make political choices and should have a record of devotion to life and liberty that our Constitution protects," the Kansas Republican said at the hearing held just before the Senate Judiciary Committee approved Roberts on a 13-5 vote.
(9/28) Captain Ed comments insightfully on the inevitability of a filibuster for the next Supreme Court nominee:
Almost anyone Bush nominates will probably face a filibuster at this point. The money on the Left now demands it, and Dean's signal shows that some Democrats feel they cannot win an election without obstructionism, the last two electoral cycles notwithstanding. The GOP needs to give them what they want and let the Kennedy-Schumer-Biden triumvirate of ineptitude loose once again on prime-time TV. The President needs to nominate someone with the same kind of skill at drawing out the innate foolishness of the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee as Roberts -- which is why I hope he will nominate Janice Rogers Brown, a brilliant legal scholar possessing a keen judicial temperament.Now the Seven Republican Dwarves of the Gang of 14 will see the folly in compromising with the Democrats. They now have to make up their minds about whether to support Bush's nominees to the Supreme Court or to protect a filibuster that has been abused by the Democrats to overturn the results of two elections in terms of controlling judicial nominees. They could have resolved this four months ago, with the stakes less than today and with a lower level of media attention. Now they find themselves only a year away from an important election cycle, where the voters will surely remember whether they supported a Supreme Court pick rather than an obscure appellate nomination.
