The real consternation over John Roberts’ Supreme Court nomination is supposed to be among Dems. And yet, just below the surface, it seems there are a surprising number of conservatives who want to trust the Bush White House, but can’t shake their concerns about the man who’ll likely be the Chief Justice very soon.
This anxiety started in July, but never really went anywhere. Ann Coulter said that “compared to what we know about John Roberts, Souter was a dream nominee.” James Dobson learned about Roberts’ role in a landmark gay-rights case and said it was “not welcome news to those of us who advocate for traditional values.” One right-wing fringe group even pulled its support for Roberts, with the group’s leader saying, “I know that others feel the same way. I know they believe as I do. They’re just not going to act.”
And they didn’t. The right was relatively passive before Roberts was nominated, and never felt it necessary to kick the message machine into high gear when it became clear that Roberts’ confirmation wasn’t in doubt. Nevertheless, behind the scenes, high-profile conservatives are getting the message to the White House — they’re not thrilled about Roberts and the next one had better be a fire-breathing wingnut.
A rift has opened between conservatives in the nation’s capital and those outside the Washington Beltway over John Roberts and his carefully worded testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee last week.
The split has divided those on the right who communicate regularly with the White House from conservative activists whose view of Roberts was shaped by the recently completed hearings.
Though it is extremely unlikely that conservatives who are voicing concerns about Roberts behind the scenes would oppose his confirmation by the Senate, they are sending a message to President Bush that his next nominee to the Supreme Court should have a clear record and be unafraid to express boldly his or her beliefs. […]
“I’m definitely one who has major concerns about the Roberts nomination,” said Dr. Virginia Armstrong, the national chairwoman of Eagle Forum’s Court Watch Project. “I had questions before the hearing. Since the hearing, those questions and concerns are much more intense than they were.”
Oddly enough, when Judiciary Committee Dems asked Roberts about his overarching legal philosophy, Republicans were thrilled when Roberts said he didn’t have one — but the far-right base wasn’t happy at all.
A Supreme Court nominee “in the mold of Scalia and Thomas,” is supposed to have an overarching legal philosophy, a rigidly conservative one at that. Indeed, for far-right groups, their kind of nominee would not only embrace such a philosophy, he or she would brag about it uncontrollably.
“I think there is some disappointment in the way that Roberts testified,” said an aide to a Republican member of the Judiciary Committee, who noted that the disappointment is not so great that GOP senators would vote against Roberts. “In general, people thought that he could answer the question of whether he is a conservative,” the aide said.
So, the right is worried that Roberts may not be as reliably Attila-the-Hun-like as they’d hoped and they’re insisting that O’Connor’s replacement not leave any doubt in their minds. But the White House, at least now, is making noises about a different strategy.
The White House is reshuffling its short list of potential Supreme Court nominees with a new emphasis on finding someone who will hold up under the pressure of what is expected to be fierce confirmation battle, several Republican allies close to the process said on Monday. […]
The shift also indicates that the administration expects some Democrats’ pent-up frustration with what they labeled as Judge Roberts’s evasiveness to spill over into the hearings for a new nominee. Republican aides briefed on the search said the White House was looking mainly at female jurists for Justice O’Connor’s seat, but it has expanded its short list and it is examining the contenders anew in the expectation of a trial by fire.
There’s some logic to this. Bush’s national support has plummeted, Republicans on the Hill are on edge, and the left is ready to launch a political “war” if O’Connor’s replacement is worse than Roberts. With this in mind, Bush might want someone a little easier to confirm.
For what it’s worth, though, I don’t buy it. I think Bush wants a partisan war — it’ll rally the base in advance of ’06, it’ll make the left spend all kinds of money, and it might even lead to the nuclear option.
The problem with Katrina is the storm didn’t give Bush an enemy to smear and rail against; a nomination fight would.