Bush Appoints a Nearly Perfect Nominee

George W. Bush’s selection of John G. Roberts to be an associate justice of the United States Supreme Court is not only politically brilliant, it’s a principled, thoughtful choice.

The President has on occasion compromised conservative principles in order to cater to interest groups that may care very little for his overall agenda (the words “tariffs” and “vigilantes” come to mind), but Bush played this one straight. He could have selected a conservative woman or Hispanic who would have been qualified, but probably would have lacked the gravitas and bipartisan support that Roberts brings to the table. Following his appointment to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, 146 members of the D.C. Bar signed a letter on behalf of his confirmation, including officials from the Clinton administration.

Once one reflects upon Roberts’ career-- and the 39 times he has appeared as an advocate before the Supreme Court -- the nominee names floated by Democrats over the past few weeks appear by comparison to be mediocre (and when Senators were suggested, laughable).

The Roberts nomination unfolded perfectly. First of all, the announcement of Roberts was a complete surprise, which in Washington is a real coup. Democrats stood by helplessly with anti-Judge Edith Clement information, unable to effectively attack Roberts despite his solid conservative credentials. Pit bull Senator Chuck Schumer conceded that “There's no question that Judge Roberts has outstanding legal credentials and an appropriate legal temperament and demeanor.” Bush successfully introduced Judge Roberts to the American people without him being “Borked” before he could get out of the gate.

Even after partisan Democrats have had an opportunity to dig up the “worst” on the nominee, it will be very difficult to launch an effective attack against the mild-mannered Roberts without appearing to be the narrow-minded bullies that they often are. Furthermore, a long career of being paid to effectively argue on behalf of clients who do not necessarily represent his personal views, coupled with the lack of a long judicial paper trail, will help prevent Roberts from being pinned down as an ideologue. On the other hand, Roberts’ membership in the Federalist Society is a credential that will give conservatives good reason to believe that Roberts will not “grow left” through the years in the same fashion as some other Republican nominees, from Roe v. Wade author Justice Harry Blackmun to the outgoing Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.

In that vein, look for Sen. Dick Durbin to interrogate Roberts in the Judiciary Committee about his membership in the Society. Durbin once commented during a judicial nominee hearing that “As we try to monitor the legal DNA of President Bush's nominees, we find repeatedly the Federalist Society chromosome. Why is it that membership in the Federalist Society has become the secret handshake of the Bush nominees for the federal court?” If Sen. Durbin attempts another of his infamous ill-advised comparisons, perhaps between the Federalist Society and a fifth column, expect Roberts to be swiftly confirmed.

Update 7/21/05 9:51 a.m.: The Washington Post reports in a story today that although CNN, the Los Angeles Times, Legal Times and the Post itself previously reported that Roberts is a dues-paying member of the Federalist Society for Law & Public Policy Studies, it's just not so. "He has no recollection of ever being a member," said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino. And apparently no one could recall having ever seen him at Society social events, although he had spoken before the Society before (as has ACLU President Nadine Strossen, on numerous occasions). Go figure. Maybe he's too frugal to pay $50/year dues and $100 for the annual dinner. So, anyway, look for Senator Durbin to be very disappointed, now that the Federalist Society line of questioning is irrelevant with respect to Roberts.