Arrow-right Camera
The Spokesman-Review Newspaper
Spokane, Washington  Est. May 19, 1883

Open minds key for court justices

The Spokesman-Review

Minutes after President Bush announced that Judge John Roberts was his choice to replace Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor on the Supreme Court, the e-mails from special interest groups began pouring in.

The liberal group People For the American Way is worried that Roberts has a “sparse public record,” meaning it couldn’t find any indication that he would rule as O’Connor had on abortion rights. Social conservatives, such as those at Grassfire.org, are heartened that Roberts’ wife is staunchly anti-abortion and has worked for that cause.

On the cable-TV and radio talk shows, almost all of the discussion is about how Roberts would rule if it came to upholding or overturning the principles embodied in Roe v. Wade.

What’s warped about this is that most cases handled by the Supreme Court have nothing to do with hot-button social issues, such as abortion, public prayer and gay marriage. Advocacy organizations, along with the media, exacerbate this by affixing labels to judges and justices based upon that narrow range of issues.

Thus, O’Connor is called a moderate, even though her rulings on trade, business and civil actions are reliably conservative. And Roberts is called conservative, even though he might be more moderate than O’Connor on economic issues.

It’s silly for liberals to think that President Bush would nominate a liberal or even a moderate to the U.S. Supreme Court. He won the past two elections; it’s clearly his call. The baseline for this appointment was always going to be conservatism. Bush consulted Congress, including Democrats, ahead of time, just as the U.S. Constitution calls for him do to. He picked a judge who is widely considered to be smart, honest and affable.

Congress still has a vital role to play in holding hearings on the nomination, and important information could still be unearthed. But if the Democrats’ chief complaint remains that he might vote to overturn a single decision (Roe), they shouldn’t hold up the process.

Judicial confirmations, and judicial elections for that matter, are always frustrating for the public. It’s human nature to want to know how judges will determine yet-to-be filed cases. But these litmus tests undermine the very nature of the job, which is to keep an open mind and to rule on the facts.

Roberts appears to be well-qualified, and he isn’t a stranger to Congress. He was easily confirmed for his position on the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. During a deal stuck in the spring to end the filibuster controversy, Senate Democrats agreed not to invoke that strategy except in an emergency.

All signs point to Roberts quickly being confirmed as the newest member of the Supreme Court, which is a relief, given the contentiousness of judicial nominations in the recent past. Is he a good choice? Nobody will really know until he gets down to cases, and even then the determination will be in the eye of the beholder.