President George
W. Bush tilted young and conservative with Judge John G.
Roberts, using his first opportunity to fill a Supreme
Court vacancy with a 50-year-old jurist who could
leave an indelible right-leaning imprint on the
nation's judiciary.
With Republicans controlling the White House and
the Senate, the president sought to reward his
conservative supporters with a Supreme Court nominee
positioned to the right of the political center. The only
question is, How far to the right could he go? The answer,
it appears, is far enough to please his hard-line
conservative base, but not much further.
Gay rights groups are wary of Roberts.
"While we are continuing our review of Judge
Roberts, we already know that we have reasons for
serious concern," said Kevin Cathcart, executive
director of Lambda Legal. "There are a number of issues
that are important in determining whether a nominee will
respect the rights of all Americans. Judge Roberts's
track record on reproductive freedom, privacy, and
federalism (respect for Congress's power to enact
important statutes like civil rights laws) merits particular scrutiny."
Added Matt Foreman, executive director of the
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force: "We especially
call upon our allies in the Senate to determine
whether Judge Roberts subscribes to the holdings of Romer
v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas, among other
cases, and will affirm that the civil rights and
privacy rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
transgender Americans are protected by the Constitution."
Democrats acknowledged privately that Roberts's
thin record does not lend itself easily to attack,
though they are troubled particularly about his views
on abortion. There will be a fight, they predicted, but it
will probably not be epic. Senate minority leader
Harry Reid, a Democrat of Nevada, did not sound like a
man throwing down the gauntlet when he said, "The
president has chosen someone with suitable legal
credentials, but that is not the end of our inquiry."
Even the criticism of special interest groups
sounded halfhearted. "John Roberts's record raises
serious concerns as well as questions about where he
stands on crucial legal and constitutional issues,"
said Ralph Neas, president of the liberal People for the
American Way. He expressed disappointment in the pick
but did not call on Democrats to defeat it.
Roberts would replace Justice Sandra Day
O'Connor, an appointee of former president Ronald
Reagan who often provided the deciding vote in split
decisions. Conservative leaders who helped elect Bush made
it clear this was payback time: They wanted a nominee
with a long and clear record of social conservatism
who could tip the court to the right on abortion, gay
rights, prayer in schools, and other hot-button issues.
They got what they wanted--to a point.
Conservative leaders said they would have been
happier with Bush's short-list candidates who have
longer and clearer records of conservatism, such as
Judge J. Michael Luttig of the fourth U.S. court of
appeals in Richmond, Va., and Judge Janice Rogers Brown of
the U.S. appeals court in Washington. But they felt
they had narrowly avoided disaster after rumors spread
through Washington that Bush had selected Judge Edith
Clement, a federal appeals court judge who is considered
more moderate than Roberts.
On the other side of the partisan divide,
Democrats were braced to fight tooth and nail against
Luttig or Brown. The party's private research memo on
Clement grudgingly acknowledged that "it is difficult to
discern a strict hard-right ideology" in her.
Abortion rights groups have maintained that
Roberts tried during his days as a lawyer in the first
Bush administration to overturn Roe v. Wade. Pressed
in 2003 for his personal views on the matter, Roberts
said the landmark court decision legalizing abortion
"is the settled law of the land." At age 50, he could
reshape the court for a generation or more.
There are four death penalty cases for the fall
term, and O'Connor was often the key swing vote in
such decisions. On abortion, she has been the deciding
vote in striking down laws that don't have an exception for
a woman's health. (Advocate.com, Ron Fournier, AP)
