Easy time seen for judicial nominee

With Senate Democrats offering at least tepid praise last night, Republicans say federal Judge John G. Roberts Jr. should be easily confirmed to the Supreme Court.

“This should be a straightforward confirmation,” said Sen. Jeff Sessions, Alabama Republican and member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which will hold hearings on the nomination. “President Bush fulfilled his commitment to appoint an individual who is committed to restraint and not legislating from the bench.”

Judge Roberts, 50, is hardly loved by Democrats and liberal groups, but he was confirmed to his current seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for District of Columbia Circuit by the full Senate without needing a vote.

“The president has chosen someone with suitable legal credentials, but that is not the end of our inquiry,” Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said. “I will not prejudge this nomination. I look forward to learning more about Judge Roberts” in committee hearings.

Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat and one of the harshest critics of Mr. Bush’s judicial nominees, noted that while he was one of three Democrats who voted in the Judiciary Committee against Judge Roberts for the D.C. Circuit Court, last night’s nomination was “a whole new ballgame.” He pledged to remain open-minded.

Mr. Schumer also joked that Judge Roberts, a native of Buffalo, N.Y., who now lives in Bethesda, is at the very least, a Bills pro football fan.

Sen. Joe Lieberman, Connecticut Democrat and one of the “Gang of 14” senators who negotiated an end to the judicial filibusters earlier this year, told reporters last week that Judge Roberts is “in the ballpark.” He added that Judge Roberts or any nominee will be carefully scrutinized.

Democratic reaction suggests that Judge Roberts may fall below the threshold of “extraordinary circumstances,” the term used by the Gang of 14 to describe the circumstances under which a future filibuster would be acceptable.

Liberal groups weren’t quite so generous, though even their responses were measured compared with the nasty rhetoric over judicial nominations in recent years.

“We’re extremely disappointed that the president did not choose a consensus nominee in the mold of Sandra Day O’Connor,” said Ralph G. Neas, president of People for the American Way. “John Roberts’ record raises serious concerns as well as questions about where he stands on crucial legal and constitutional issues — it will be extremely important for senators and the American people to get answers to those questions.”

In particular, Mr. Neas and other pro-choice advocates are suspicious that Judge Roberts doesn’t believe that the Constitution guarantees the right to an abortion, as was determined in the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision.

“We continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled,” he argued in a brief. He also said that abortion has “no support in the text, structure or history of the Constitution.”

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who was nearly passed over for the chairman’s slot last year after he suggested that Mr. Bush would have a hard time confirming a Supreme Court nominee who doesn’t support pro-choice rights, said Judge Roberts “brings very fine qualifications to the position.”

Asked whether he shared the concerns of pro-choice groups, Mr. Specter replied: “I’m concerned about people already starting to raise questions. It’s less than two hours since word was out that Judge Roberts would be the nominee. I think that at a minimum people ought to give him an opportunity to be heard and to express himself and to review his record.”

Judge Roberts also drew scrutiny from liberals last night because he was part of the three-judge panel that gave the Bush administration the important victory last Friday when it ruled that the military tribunals of detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, could proceed.

Story Continues →