Supreme appointments
IF ONE or more of the Supreme Court justices announces his, her, or their retirement at the end of the court term today, the stage will be set for what might be the most dramatic and bitterly fought battle of President Bush's two terms.
We hope it is not. There is ample precedent for the nomination of justices who can easily be identified as conservative or liberal but who are not pure ideologues. Sandra Day O'Connor is an example of a justice who has not abandoned the conservative beliefs that President Ronald Reagan relied on when he nominated her but who has shown that she approaches each case on its merits rather than her political philosophy. The Senate confirmed O'Connor on a vote of 99 to 0.
What a relief it would be for the entire nation if Bush sought to fill any Supreme Court vacancies, now or in the rest of his term, with judges who have demonstrated a passion for unraveling the facts and arguments before them rather than a zeal to impose their point of view. A crucial group of 14 senators -- Republicans and Democrats -- last month urged Bush and his advisers to consult with senators before making a formal nomination. ''Such a return to the early practices of our government may well serve to reduce the rancor that unfortunately accompanies the advice and consent process in the Senate," they said.
Their statement came as the 14 defused the ''nuclear option" threatened by the Senate majority leader, Bill Frist. Under this option, the Republican majority was prepared to use a dishonest interpretation of Senate rules to ram through the confirmation of right-wing judicial appointments. Despite the compromise, Frist didn't renounce the option, which remains a threat.
With Supreme Court nominees, or course, the stakes could not be higher. Justices now frequently serve 20 or 30 years -- Chief Justice William Rehnquist was appointed to the court in 1971 -- so the influence of presidents extends long after the voters have any recourse. With the court now closely divided on many issues, one or two new ideologues could alter the national fabric fundamentally. Remember, this is a court that has already snatched a national election out of the hands of Florida voters and election officials.
Recent Bush nominations, such as that of John Bolton to the United Nations and several appeals court candidates, show an inclination toward confrontation and a disdain for consensus. If that applies to the Supreme Court as well, those who fight the nominations will be the ultimate patriots.
If there is a vacancy, the decision will be up to Bush. Elected as a uniter, he could still reclaim a bit of that for the historical record. Or he could be one of the greatest presidential dividers ever.
