The Informationist

Vote for Roberts

This week, Americans got their first up-close glimpse of the man all-but-certain to become their next Chief Justice. No one who was predisposed towards Roberts a week ago could possibly have seen anything to turn them against him; he was quite impressive. Nevertheless, many Americans--and likely a large part of the Senate--will never forgive Roberts for his original sin: He is a Republican.

No voter who much cares about the courts entered the 2004 election season oblivious to its significance. Most of us simply assumed that the victorious presidential candidate would name the next Chief Justice, and likely at least one Associate Justice, as well. Within that framework, Democratic primary voters advocated the sort of judge that John Kerry would choose. Republican primary voters opted for the sort of judge that George Bush would choose. The country spoke. We expressed a collective preference for the sort of judge that George Bush would choose.

Within that broad category, the President had a great deal of latitude. Many of the names bandied about would, in fact, make horrible Justices. My greatest fear was that Bush would politicize the process the way that he has politicized so much else: by choosing the most extreme candidate capable of commanding a majority vote. But Bush did not choose that route. He selected a gifted, decent man whose career demonstrates an openness to ideas with which he disagrees. His performance this past week reenforced that image. I can only believe that Bush chose accordingly because he appreciates just how critical it is that Americans trust its courts. A polarizing fight over a Chief Justice would necessarily dismay a large part of the country and put that trust in a precarious position.

The Democrats in the Senate now have a choice. They can recognize that Bush made an exceptional choice from within the category of candidates that the American people selected, or they can try to re-fight an election they already lost. Perhaps if they join the President in encouraging all Americans to trust the court--say, by ensuring that our new Chief Justice receives at least 80 votes rather than 55--he will respond in kind by choosing another reasonable candidate for the court’s vacant seat. If not, if even John Roberts cannot get more than token Democratic support, why should Bush choose anyone capable of earning more than the 51 votes needed for confirmation?

Posted by Bruce Abramson from on 09/16 at 06:41 PM in American Government, Politics, and Domestic Policies