The Ongoing Search for Justices

Supreme Court Chief Justice William Renquist died yesterday. This recent vacancy comes barely over a month after Justice Sandra Day O’Connor—who had earned a solid reputation as a moderate swing voter in her 24 terms—announced her retirement.

President Bush now faces a time crunch. He has to ensure that two vacancies are filled, so that when the Supreme Court reconvenes in October, the 9-Justice court will be closer to being whole.

Most recently, President Bush made waves in the political community when he nominated U.S. Circuit Judge John Roberts Jr. — a conservative whose selection prompted Democrats to vow a thorough review — as a replacement for O'Connor. Several liberal groups such as the NAACP, Naral Pro-Choice, NOW, and Latin organizations like the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund are rallying against his nomination. An “Antonin Scalia in sheep’s clothing” is how People for the American Way President Ralph Neas described Roberts, referring both to his record on civil rights and privacy and to the current ultra-conservative Justice who is notorious for his abrasive personality. “We are saddened that President Bush chose the politics of conflict and division over bipartisan consensus,” read a statement issued by the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights coalition.

On the other hand, conservative groups such as Progress for America, support Roberts, citing his “sound judgment,” “personal decency” and “intellect” — he is a graduate of Harvard Law School. He is “a man of great character who deserves genuine consideration and not automatic attacks and partisan indignation” said Brian McCabe, President of the conservative group Progress for America. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist — a Republican from Tennessee — said, “Judge Roberts is the kind of outstanding nominee that will make America proud. He is fair, intelligent, impartial and committed to faithfully interpreting the Constitution and the law.”

The Senate panel will begin hearings to review Roberts’ record on September 6.

In the face of a second vacancy, those closely following the nominations are less concerned with diversity it seems. After all, the Supreme Court has hardly been a poster child for diversity with only two women, two African-Americans, and no Latin or Asian Americans having ever been nominated. Instead, simultaneous loss of two Justices has created a tense situation for some politicians who are, above all, concerned that what was previously a balanced court, will suddenly end up being a Supreme Court with a decidedly right-wing agenda for several generations to come. They fear that a conservative court will undo Roe V. Wade and significantly reverse progress made on civil rights, affirmative action, and other personal freedoms. In other words, they fear that the new court will “turn back the clock on civil liberties,” as stated by Mr. Neas.

The nervous tension also stems from a senate that is closely divided and recognition of the challenges involved in determining where a new Justice's rulings will ultimately fall. For example, one CNN reporter writes, “Ideology is hard to characterize, particularly in judicial candidates who presumably are not disposed to view the law with a strictly political lens. The term “reliably conservative” or “reliably liberal” may be the best a president can hope for when considering candidates for the Supreme Court.”

Author David Yalof, in his book — Pursuit of Justices — echoes these concerns when he writes, “The process has become more partisan, in part because we’ve been waiting so long for a vacancy, and because the political stakes as usual, are so high.” It turns out that examples of confirmed Justices who have ruled opposite of what was expected and therefore have caught many a previous president and politician off guard abound. Fear of repeating those missteps, has led to an exhaustive review and confirmation process, often characterized by heated debates.

“Every time a new justice comes to the Supreme Court, it’s a different court,” said Justice Byron R. White. Each new arrival shifts the dynamics of the group—the way decisions are debated, the fine balance between liberal and conservative views, and the partnerships that are fostered. This adjustment period lasts until new group roles can emerge, says Gerald L. Wilson — a professor of communication at the University of South Alabama. “You need role stability for the group to be at its best.”

Given all the changes going on, the Supreme Court and the American public are surely in for a period of some adjustment.



This article was compiled by reports on CNN and New York Times