With the recent death of William H. Rehnquist, John G. Roberts's upcoming conformation hearings have taken on added weight because Bush has nominated him to become chief justice of the United States. The selection has not figured prominently in most media outlets due to the blanket coverage given to Hurricane Katrina. This is unfortunate because the nomination, coupled with a yet-to-be-determined pick for Sandra Day O'Connor's vacancy, will shape the future of the court for decades to come. It should be at the forefront of media coverage because of its impact on our daily lives, and our future.
Not since the Nixon administration has a president had the chance to change the makeup of the Supreme Court with such long-term ramifications. Though the opportunity to appoint two members ideologically aligned with Bush's politics might be tempting, the court, and country, would be better off if he did not. The passing of Rehnquist allows Roberts to take over his role as the conservative leader of the court. However, the O'Connor vacancy presents a dilemma in that she often provided the swing vote for many important social decisions, though she participated in the infamous majority decision that awarded Bush the presidency after the troubled election of 2000. A second nominee with the ultra-conservative bend of Roberts and current justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas would not be good for the country. Bush should find a candidate that is viewed with having bipartisan support along the lines of O'Connor. This would prevent the bickering that permeates every facet of today's political discourse and prevent contentious hearings along the lines of the Reagan era appointee, Robert Bork, which served the best interests of none.
What is best for all would be for Bush to put his pandering to the hard right element of his party aside and choose a justice to replace O'Connor that is steeped in the tradition of jurisprudence and not politics. By all appearances, Roberts seems able for his new role but in essence his appointment is purely political. He worked within George H.W. Bush's and Reagan's administrations in politically appointed roles. He only served as a judge for two years before his probable ascendancy as chief justice, and Bush's next candidate to fill O'Connor's slot should represent a different route to the court.
The Bush Administration should put politics aside in order to fill the O'Connor seat with the best possible candidate. Fairly or not, Rehnquist's legacy will be viewed through the impact of his court's decision in the matter of Gore v. Bush. The blatant partisanship of that decision tainted the Supreme Court's collective reputation in the eyes of many, and Bush's decision on O'Connor's replacement can repair the damage done by it. In order for the American people to view the institution of the Supreme Court with the respect it deserves, politics and partisanship must be eliminated as much as possible. For obvious reasons it is not realistic to expect politics to be taken out of the equation altogether, but Bush's decision on O'Connor's replacement should take into account the millions of American citizens who do not support his ideology. A rehashing of the issues that will comprise the Roberts hearings will not do anyone justice and should be avoided at all costs.
