The Liberal Supreme Court Rhetoric vs. The Reality

Shortly after President Bush selected Judge John G. Roberts, Jr., for nomination to the Supreme Court, liberal groups began to attack the choice as “out of the mainstream.” As the Chicago Tribune notes, “Some liberal advocates called for an all-out war to stop the nomination,” with people like NARAL Pro-Choice America President Nancy Keenan declaring that “President Bush has consciously chosen the path of confrontation, and he should know that we, and the 65 percent of Americans who support Roe, are ready for the battle ahead.”* ( http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0507200185jul20,1,147122.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed )

So, how does the rhetoric match up to the reality? Let’s look at the most established (and reliable) liberal news sources in the country: the New York Times and the Washington Post. As the New York Times reported,
“Now the question is whether Judge Roberts, if confirmed, will, like those two justices, commit himself to recapturing a distant constitutional paradise in which the court was faithful to the original intent of the framers or whether, like the justice he would succeed, he finds himself comfortably in the middle rather than at the margin.
His résumé suggests the latter, as does his almost complete lack of a paper trail. There are no flame-throwing articles or speeches, no judicial opinions that threaten established precedent, no visible hard edges.
To the extent that as a judge he has expressed a limited view of federal power, that is consistent with the views of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, whom he is being named to succeed, and would not change the balance on the court.” (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/20/national/20legal.html?ei=5094&en=8f7eadf2245decd8&hp=&ex=1121918400&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print)
As the Washington Post adds, “the president passed over a number of highly conservative judges whose nominations would have been seen as far more ideological and polarizing than that of Roberts. Given that this was the first but probably not the last Supreme Court vacancy he will be asked to fill, Bush signaled a less confrontational approach toward the Senate than he has adopted with his lower-court nominations.” So much for Keenan’s declaration that Bush has “Bush has consciously chosen the path of confrontation.” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/19/AR2005071901946.html)

Of course, these liberal groups would prefer a liberal Democrat on the Court to a Republican “comfortably in the middle rather than at the margin” in the words of the New York Times. Yet maybe they should focus on trying to win elections and communicating better with the American public rather than attacking what John A. Rogovin, a Washington lawyer who served in the Justice Department during the Clinton administration and as general counsel of the independent Federal Communications Commission, recently called “one of the most measured, thoughtful judges out there."

Then again, character assassination of good federal judges is nothing new to these groups.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

* As a side note, let's putaside for the moment that 6 out of the 9 Justices on the Court today support a Constitutional right to abortion, so that the shrill liberal scream of "save Roe! save Roe!" -- implying that Roe is at stake in this confirmation -- is a deliberate tactic to mislead Americans. (http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/07/07/dorf.scotus.elections/) This confirmation will not change the balance on Roe v. Wade, no matter how conservative a justice Bush could pick. With the most recent case in 2000 (Stenberg v. Carhart), 6 justices supported Roe and 3 opposed it in their opinions. In fact, according to Keenan's own numbers, those who support Roe are actually OVERrepresented on the Supreme Court at the moment -- albeit not by much -- assuming that 65% of American support Roe. Let's set aside for the moment whether I support Roe too -- which I believe I do. The fact is, the sreams of "save Roe" are mere tactics in a political war, and representative of these groups' heated rhetoric that twists facts to pursue their own transparent agendas.