Monday, September 05, 2005

Why Bush Chose Roberts for Chief Justice?

This is going to be a tricky post to write, but if I'm careful and precise, I may be able to provide an explanation as to why President Bush chose John Roberts to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

I first want to make a couple of assumptions. First we have to assume that the Republican Party / Bush White House has an overwhelming need to control everything regarding news and politics. Each political decision is made on the basis for that need to control. We can certainly see that with the restriction of the press in its coverage of the war in Iraq, or even the fact that the press is still not able to cover the return of American dead soldiers from Iraq.

The second assumption we will make is that the Religious Right has a profound desire to change the ideological make-up of the Supreme Court. We know that the Religious Right has contributed heavily in the re-election of George W. Bush. We can assume that in return for the re-election support of President Bush, that the Religious Right will want Bush to select hard-lined conservatives who will shift the court far rightward, and possibly overturn abortion--which has been the Religious Rights goal for the last 30 years. We also know that President Bush favors Supreme Court justices in the ideological mode of Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia.

Now I want to define the ideological make-up of this current Supreme Court. This court has been sharply divided with Sandra Day O'Conner as a crucial swing voter, who is also conservative. The Chief Justice has been the conservative William Rehnquist. So let's assume this is the ideological make-up of the court:

The Conservative Base
William Rehnquist--Chief Justice
Antonin Scalia
Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas

The Swing Voter
Sandra Day O'Conner

The Liberal Base
John Paul Stevens--Senior Associate Justice
David Souter
Ruth Badar Ginsburg
Stephen Bryer

This is the make-up of the court. Now we take out Rehnquist due to his death, and O'Conner due to her retirement (Without Robert's confirmation). Now look at the new make-up of the court:

The Conservative Base
Antonin Scalia
Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas

The Liberal Base
John Paul Stevens--Acting Chief Justice
David Souter
Ruth Badar Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer

The court's ideological make-up shifts to a more liberal stance with four liberal justices and three conservative justices. And more importantly, John Paul Stevens takes on the duties as an acting chief justice since he is the most senior associate member of the Supreme Court. The last thing the Religious Right will want is to allow John Paul Stevens, one of the most liberal members of the court, to take on the responsibilities of an acting chief justice for the next three to six months, until President Bush selects a new chief justice. Now in O'Conner's resignation letter, she will retire only after an associate justice is confirmed to take her place, assuming Robert's confirmation is still pending. So when we place O'Conner back into the above list, we get this:

The Conservative Base
Antonin Scalia
Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas

The Swing Voter
Sandra Day O'Conner

The Liberal Base
John Paul Stevens--Acting Chief Justice
David Souter
Ruth Badar Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer

The court make-up will still be four liberals and three conservatives, but O'Conner will play an even more powerful role in making decisions regarding social issues such as abortion. We are still assuming Robert's confirmation process as pending. John Paul Stevens will still remain as an acting chief justice until Bush selects a replacement chief justice who is confirmed by the Senate. The court will further leftward--something that both the Republican Party, and the Religious Right would refuse to accept.

Now let's assume Roberts is confirmed to replace O'Conner. Let us also assume that Robert's ideology is similar to that of Scalia or Thomas, considering that Bush likes a nominee with the thinking of either Thomas or Scalia. The make-up of the court will be this:

The Conservative Base
Antonin Scalia
Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas
John Roberts

The Liberal Base
John Paul Stevens--Acting Chief Justice
David Souter
Ruth Badar Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer

Here the make-up of the court is split down the middle--four conservatives and four liberals. And once again, John Paul Stevens will be acting chief justice until Bush selects a replacement. The Religious Right will also not accept this make-up--they will certainly not allow Stevens as acting chief justice, nor does this combination allow the court to shift rightward. Now if we continue to assume that Roberts ideology is similar to Thomas and Scalia, then we can also assume that these three justices would form a new conservative block. This could bring Anthony Kennedy to the forefront as a major swing voter / power player in the politics of the court, considering that the current swing voter O'Conner has retired. Even if President Bush replaces O'Conner with Roberts and decides to elevate Scalia or Thomas to the chief justice position, the make-up of the court will still be split down the middle at four each. Bush will still need to find a new associate justice to replace either Scalia or Thomas's chair, once either of them were elevated to the chief justice. If Bush was able to select a new associate justice nominee by the beginning of October, it would take about three months for the FBI to do a background check, then perhaps another one to two months for the confirmation hearings to conclude. Such an associate justice would not be sworn in until after February or March--well into the start of the 2006 midterm election campaigning. The Supreme Court would become THE campaign issue for both political parties.
This is assuming that Bush can find a nominee quickly enough, and without any major political baggage that the Senate Democrats can use to attack and destroy this nominee during the confirmation hearings.

Now let's assume that President Bush nominates Roberts to replace Chief Justice Rehnquist. Sandra Day O'Conner would continue to serve on the court until Bush selects and the Senate confirms another nominee to replace her. Here is the new make-up of the court:

The Conservative Base
John Roberts--Chief Justice
Antonin Scalia
Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas

The Swing Voter
Sandra Day O'Conner

The Liberal Base
John Paul Stevens--Senior Associate Justice
David Souter
Ruth Badar Ginsburg
Stephen Bryer

The court goes back to its original ideological positions, with four conservative justices, four liberal justices and one swing vote justice. Also the Chief Justice position will go to John Roberts, keeping that powerful position within the conservatives. There will be nine justices on the court. The big advantage here is that Bush is given some more time to again carefully consider who to choose as a replacement to O'Conner--someone with even less of a record than John Roberts. The big disadvantage will be that the next confirmation fight may take place at the start of the election year, a confirmation fight that could be more nasty than the Roberts fight.

This whole exercise is to show how careful the Bush Administration is in making political calculations as a means to maintaining control in all forms of government. This is a form of control--control of the Supreme Court for the conservative ideology. of course, this calculation was developed due to the unforeseen circumstances of Rehnquist's death (Although everyone was expecting Rehnquist would die before Bush's term was up). President Bush now has the power to shape the court to a more conservative stance with the selection of two Supreme Court justices. If, for example, one of the liberal justices either dies or retires--such as Stevens or Ginsburg--this would give President Bush and the Religious Right even more power to control and shape the court to their own, hard-lined, conservative image.

1 comment:

Eric A Hopp said...

I will admit that I am not an expert on the Supreme Court. I wrote this post to examine the ideological make-up of the court itself, and how the court's ideology may shift depending upon the justices selected. From what I've read on the court's 5-4 decisions, the justices were usually split down the middle, with O'Conner as the swing vote. This is not to say that it happened every time, since the justices would make their decisions based on their morals, their ideology, and their interpretation of the Constitution and the legal precidents of past court decisions.

I will say that if Bush selects a hard-lined conservative to replace O'Conner, and if Roberts own ideology is similar to Justices Thomas and Scalia, then Kennedy would be in a powerful position of replacing O'Conner as the swing voter. This would give him some considerable influence if the court continues to remain split down the middle (And Bush does not have the opportunity to replace either Stevens or Ginsburg). One thing we can certainly say about the court is that the power of these justices are enormous, and for a long-reaching time. They have the ability to shape the U.S. political and cultural landscape for decades. Perhaps the nature of this power may give these legal scholars a pause to reflect how their decisions will influence U.S. society well into the future.