Only a week ago, it was certain that the composition of the United States Supreme Court would soon change. With Justice Sandra Day O'Connor preparing to retire, President Bush had nominated Judge John G. Roberts, Jr. as her replacement. Though criticized by some liberal groups and leaders as too conservative, the general consensus seemed to dictate that Roberts was a seemingly inoffensive choice for the seat -considering the current president's political leanings. However, with the recent death of Chief Justice of the United States William H. Rehnquist the circumstances surrounding Roberts' nomination have been altered dramatically, and Roberts has gone from being a D.C. Circuit Court judge to a nominee for the highest judicial post in the nation.
The stakes have undoubtedly been raised. Less than two days after Rehnquist's death, President Bush announced that Roberts' nomination would be upgraded to that of chief justice, with an alternative replacement for O'Connor forthcoming. If confirmed, the 50-year-old Roberts would surely shape the policy of the high court for decades to come. This means that Roberts' hearing, now delayed until next week, should feature more intense scrutiny on the part of Senate Democrats than they might otherwise have exercised. However, the hearings should be dignified and free of excessive politicking.
What liberal-minded critics within Congress, as well as among the voting public, must keep in mind is that the Roberts nomination is likely the best they could have hoped for from President Bush. It is the president's right, reinforced by a reelection and a conservative congressional majority, to nominate whomever he deems competent for the position. Bush's nominee could just as easily have come in the form of promoting current Justice Antonin Scalia or supporting a federal judge with a much more conservative record of rulings than Roberts' seemingly mild history. Given the situation, Roberts remains preferable to Scalia or those of the same ilk.
Not only should Judge Roberts' nomination for chief justice be seriously considered -a mainstream conservative nominee to replace O'Connor would be a reasonable move on the president's part. The hindering efforts of far-left interest groups and politicians should be largely ignored, but, at the same time, no nominee deserves a free ride. A Bush-nominated chief justice will soon lead the Supreme Court, and this person, one way or another, will likely be conservative. With this reality in mind, Roberts' nomination for chief justice should be tolerated and a tough, but dignified, confirmation hearing should proceed.
17 Archives
The Post Editorial Board
