After feverous anticipation and anxiety -depending on one's political leanings - the speculation about whom President Bush would nominate to fill the U.S. Supreme Court vacancy, created when justice Sandra Day O'Connor announced her retirement, has ended. Yesterday, Bush officially announced his nomination, Judge John G. Roberts Jr., and hailed Roberts as having the qualities Americans expect in a judge: experience
wisdom fairness and civility. However, as can be expected, the nomination has spurred a debate not only to whether Roberts is qualified, but also to how close his ties are to conservatives.
Already, at least a month before the confirmation hearings will begin, controversy over Bush's nomination has begun a political debate with Republicans praising Roberts and Democrats, as well as other liberal groups, questioning him. Although those on the political left are apprehensive about the impact of adding another conservative judge to the high court's bench, it is imperative that opponents view Roberts not as a failure, but as a fair compromise. It would be unrealistic to expect Bush to appoint a liberal judge and, considering he could have appointed a far more radical conservative to the bench, Democrats should embrace the idea of confirming Roberts.
Possibly the biggest concern of the political left is the fear that Roberts could be a swing vote that could overturn the landmark abortion case Roe v. Wade, should current abortion laws be challenged. Critics of Roberts have argued that he might not be fair in judging such a case because as principal deputy solicitor general under the first President Bush, a position he held from 1989-93, he wrote a brief that characterized Roe as wrongly decided and should be overruled.
Although such a fear is reasonable, critics also must remember that during his confirmation hearings for the U.S. District Court of Appeals, he clarified the situation surrounding that statement. Roberts said he merely was expressing his clients' beliefs, and does not harbor any personal feelings that would influence a future decision. He also went on to say, Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. From those opposing statements, it seems to be clear that Roberts is not a strong advocate or an opponent of abortion. In this one example it seems as if Roberts would make a good justice because he lacks a strong personal belief regarding the decision and thus would rule based on the merits of the case and earlier court precedents.
Aside from the politically motivated questions, his credentials are impressive: a member of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia; a Harvard University degree; clerk for Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist; 39 cases argued before the Supreme Court as a private attorney; principal deputy solicitor general for President Bush Sr.; and associate counsel to President Reagan from 1982-86. He also has been characterized as one of the finest legal minds of his generation.
Further, it is imperative to note that at the time of her appointment -nominated by Ronald Reagan -O'Connor was viewed as a conservative judge and a possible threat to cases like Roe, as well. O'Connor was the first female Supreme Court Justice and a political moderate on a divided court. Therefore, a precedent seems to be in place for Roberts potentially to follow. Putting all political agendas aside, there are two substantial truths that come with Roberts' nomination. First, Bush has nominated a qualified and respected -by individuals on both sides of the political arena -candidate; and second, Roberts is not a neo-conservative or an ultra-liberal judge. His moderate political affiliations should be tolerated, and he should be given serious consideration for the position.
17
Archives
The Post Editorial Board
