Bush’s ‘safe’ pick for the Supreme Court

What happened

President Bush this week took a major step toward putting a conservative stamp on the U.S. Supreme Court by nominating federal appeals court Judge John Roberts to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Bush said he picked Roberts for his 'œexperience, wisdom, fairness, and civility,' and politicians from both parties praised the nominee for his impeccable credentials. Roberts graduated Harvard in three years, served as a counsel for two Republican administrations, and has argued 39 cases before the Supreme Court for both the government and private clients. Bush appointed Roberts a federal appeals judge in 2003.

Roberts' nomination delighted conservative groups, which have been counting on Bush to replace O'Connor'”a frequent swing vote'”with a 'œstrict constructionist' in the mold of Justice Antonin Scalia. 'œThe president is a man of his word,' said Family Research Council President Tony Perkins. Yet Roberts' limited judicial record left Democrats little ammunition with which to oppose him. Abortion rights groups complained that, as a deputy solicitor general, Roberts once argued that the Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion should be overturned. But Roberts, a Catholic, told the Senate in 2003 that his personal views wouldn't keep him from respecting Roe as the law of the land. With this pick, a leading Democratic aide said, Bush 'œartfully threaded the needle.'

Subscribe to The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

Sign up

What the editorials said

What an inspired choice, said the Denver Rocky Mountain News. As he promised, Bush selected a brilliant lawyer who doesn't believe judges should inject their political views into the law. Liberal interest groups may still attempt to 'œBork' Roberts by painting him as a dangerous extremist. But if the Senate can't 'œbuckle down' and confirm Roberts before the court's fall term starts in October, 'œit will amount to a national scandal.'

Not so fast, said the Los Angeles Times. 'œIt is entirely appropriate for the Senate to probe a nominee's judicial philosophy.' Roberts recently voted to uphold Bush's plan to hold military trials for suspected terrorists at Guantánamo, so Democrats have a right to ask how far he thinks we should bend basic rights in the name of fighting terrorism. And if Roberts really believes that Roe v. Wade was 'œwrongly decided and should be overruled,' as he wrote in 1991, he shouldn't count on a 'œsmooth confirmation.'

What the columnists said

What more could the nation want in a Supreme Court justice? said Shannen Coffin in National Review Online. Roberts is 'œa brilliant lawyer' who is 'œrespected on both sides of the aisle.' His selection won't please liberals who expect judges to make law of every social change 'œon the left's agenda,' but they won't have a leg to stand on if they try to block this nomination.

Unless, of course, they bring up how Roberts has trampled on the Geneva Conventions, said Bruce Shapiro in TheNation.com. Just last week, Roberts and two other Republican appointees on the D.C. Court of Appeals issued a ruling, 'œin scathing language,' giving the president authority to convene military trials for terror suspects at Guantánamo Bay. With that ruling, Roberts passed the only litmus test that really matters with Bush these days. The courts have been challenging Bush's insistence that the war on terror takes precedence over the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions. So 'œthe Bush administration badly needs a friend like Roberts on the Supreme Court.'

Actually, if anyone should be upset about this nomination, said Fred Barnes in The Weekly Standard, it should be social conservatives. They wanted a carbon copy of Scalia, someone 'œwith a streak of daring' willing to overturn previous court rulings that were not faithful to the Constitution. Instead, Bush gave his most ardent supporters 'œan establishment conservative' who should breeze to confirmation but leave them exactly where they started'”two votes short of overturning Roe v. Wade. Roberts is a 'œsafe' pick who will 'œnudge the court to the right''”nothing more.

What next?