Get the latest updates as we post them — right on your browser

. Last Updated: 07/27/2016

Bush Nominates Roberts to Supreme Court

WASHINGTON -- With the nomination Tuesday of John Roberts to the Supreme Court, President George W. Bush reaffirmed his commitment to a bold-stroke presidency -- but also signaled an uncharacteristic interest in reducing his exposure to political risk.

Bush repeatedly has shown a willingness to accept pitched political battles as the price of pursuing dramatic change. The selection of Roberts, widely considered more conservative than retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, underscores Bush's desire to tilt the court to the right.

But in Roberts, a judge since 2003 on the powerful U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Bush also chose a nominee unlikely to inspire either the most enthusiasm among hard-core conservatives or the most intense opposition from Democrats and liberal groups.

In effect, Roberts may represent an effort to thread the needle in filling the court vacancy. The selection could offer Bush an opportunity to maximize his chance of a relatively smooth confirmation while minimizing the danger of either conservative disaffection or scorched-earth Democratic opposition.

As a former clerk to Chief Justice William Rehnquist, a legal official in the administrations of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush and a reliably conservative voice on the bench, Roberts is respected by Republicans.

Conservative activists welcomed the nominee more enthusiastically than they would have Edith Brown Clement, the justice from the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals who, for part of Tuesday, was Bush's rumored pick.

Roberts also has drawn high marks from experts in both parties for his qualifications, and may present a limited target for Democrats because he has written few decisions in his two years as a federal judge.

Roberts has won praise from some prominent Democratic lawyers -- which could help insulate him against attacks during his confirmation process. Three Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee opposed his confirmation to the appellate court in 2003; the full Senate confirmed him on a voice vote.

"This is a shrewd move by this administration," said David Yalof, a University of Connecticut political scientist who has written extensively on judicial nominations. "On the one hand, this is an individual who staunch conservatives are going to take to very quickly. And at the same time, because he's only been a judge for two years, there is not going to be a large target in terms of attacking him for his judicial opinions."

That does not mean Roberts will not provoke a significant confrontation in Congress. The fight will not fully take shape until activists on both sides have explored his record more thoroughly -- a process that will not culminate until his confirmation hearings before the Judiciary Committee later this summer.

But because activists on both sides have stockpiled so much money for a Supreme Court fight -- and because O'Connor's successor is viewed as so critical to the court's ideological balance -- Bush's choice to replace her was virtually guaranteed to generate fireworks.

"No matter who got nominated, there is just a lot of money waiting to talk," said Richard Garnett, a professor at Notre Dame Law School and former law clerk for Rehnquist.

It was telling that when word of Roberts' nomination surfaced more than an hour before Bush officially announced it, conservatives had released statements praising the selection and liberal groups, such as People for the American Way, declared that the pick "raises serious concerns."

One senior Democratic Senate aide cautioned that the support for Roberts' appellate court nomination did not guarantee equally smooth sailing for the Supreme Court.

Liberals already were focusing on Roberts' co-authorship of a legal brief during the first Bush administration that argued Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision guaranteeing the right to abortion, was wrongly decided. Democrats and their allies also quickly raised questions about his record on environmental issues.

Wade Henderson, executive director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, declared that Roberts "may be a hard-nosed extremist with a soft conservative facade."

Nobody expected Bush's choice to be welcomed with a unanimous chorus of praise. But given that Roberts can expect overwhelming Republican support in the Senate, the real question may quickly become whether he raises enough opposition among Democrats to generate a filibuster.

It is unclear whether his record will provoke the degree of unease that would justify such a dramatic step, especially after a bipartisan group of Republican and Democratic senators in May agreed that the filibuster should be employed only in "extraordinary circumstances."

"This is probably one of those close calls [for Democrats] on the filibuster, but the decision probably weighs against the filibuster in the end," Yalof said.