Politics > Bush Nominates Roberts for Supreme Court

Bush's First Supreme Court Nominee Faces Questioning on Host of Contentious Issues

President Bush introduces federal appeals court Judge John G. Roberts Jr. Tuesday, July 19, 2005, as his first nominee for the Supreme Court Roberts is a conservative whose nomination could trigger a tumultuous battle over the direction of the nation's hi

President Bush introduced the 50-year-old federal appeals court judge to the nation Tuesday night, calling him a man with "a good heart" and a jurist who will "strictly apply the Constitution in laws not legislate from the bench."

After breakfast with Bush at the White House, Roberts was to meet Wednesday with leaders in the Senate, which will decide whether he will replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and become the first new Supreme Court member in more than a decade.

Reaction from Republican senators was overwhelmingly supportive.

Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee called for confirmation proceedings that "treat Judge Roberts with dignity and respect" and lead to a yes or no vote before the court's term begins Oct 3.

Democrats reacted more cautiously, but there were no instant predictions of a filibuster.

"The president has chosen someone with suitable legal credentials, but that is not the end of our inquiry," Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., the only woman on the Senate Judiciary Committee that will hold hearings on the nomination, said the new justice will be critical to the balance of the court, especially when it rules on cases involving congressional authority, a woman's right to privacy and environmental protections.

"I will keep my powder dry until the due diligence is completed," Feinstein said.

Conservative interest groups were elated, saying the president kept a campaign promise to nominate someone akin to conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia. Liberal groups, meanwhile, expressed concerns about Roberts' views on abortion, religious freedom, environmental protections and the First Amendment.

At the White House after Bush's announcement, Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said that while Roberts has little national name recognition, the 60 or so opinions he has written will soon be on the "best seller list."

While he lacks national name recognition, the Harvard-educated Roberts is a Washington insider who has worked over the years at the White House, Justice Department and in private practice. Born in Buffalo, N.Y., and raised in Indiana, Roberts was the captain of his high school football team and worked summers in a steel mill to help pay his way through college.

His resume includes a stint as a clerk to William H. Rehnquist, the 80-year-old chief justice of the court who is suffering from thyroid cancer but recently affirmed his plan to work as long as his health permits. It was Rehnquist who presided over the swearing-in ceremony when Roberts took his seat on the appeals court for the District of Columbia.

"Before I became a judge, my law practice consisted largely of arguing cases before the court," Roberts said after Bush introduced him Tuesday night. "That experience left me with a profound appreciation for the role of the court in our constitutional democracy and a deep regard for the court as an institution. I always got a lump in my throat whenever I walked up those marble steps to argue a case before the court, and I don't think it was just from the nerves."

He was nominated for the D.C. appeals court in 1992 by the first President Bush and again by the president in 2001. The nominations died in the Senate both times. He was renominated in January 2003 and was confirmed by voice vote. At the time, his nomination to the appellate court attracted support from both sides of the ideological spectrum.

It's unclear how contentious this confirmation battle will be.

"There's no doubt there will be a battle. There's no question about that," said Tony Perkins of the conservative Family Research Council. "But I think it's one that can be won and I think it's one that will be won."

Perkins said this is a watershed moment for the court.

"The court has been shifting to the left over the last 40 years, and this clearly would shift the court back to one that understands its role as being a body that interprets the law, not makes the law," said Perkins. "Clearly it will bring a philosophical shift to the court."

While liberal senators tended toward measured responses, left-leaning advocacy groups like the People for the American Way immediately began challenging Roberts' judicial views.

The group sent out "emergency alerts" to more than 400,000 supporters, telling them to contact their senators posthaste and ask them to withhold judgment on Roberts until after the confirmation hearings are completed.

The nominee must be willing to share and defend his judicial philosophy and fully answer senators' questions about the Constitution and other issues, including environmental protections, reproductive rights and religious liberty, Ralph Neas, president of the group, said.

Abortion arguably the most politically charged issue to confront Congress and the courts swiftly emerged as a point of contention.

The National Organization for Women planned an emergency demonstration against Roberts on Wednesday on Capitol Hill. "We refuse to allow Roberts, who is such a stealth opponent of women's rights, pass the Senate confirmation process," NOW President Kim Gandy said. "George W. Bush just guaranteed the fight of his political career with this nomination."

The abortion rights group NARAL Pro-Choice America cited a brief Roberts filed with the Supreme Court while serving as deputy solicitor general in the first Bush administration. In the brief, Roberts said Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 ruling that established a woman's right to abortion, "was wrongly decided and should be overruled."

In his defense, Roberts told senators during 2003 confirmation hearings to his current post that he would be guided by legal precedent. "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent."

2005-09-03