Justice Roberts?

On Oct. 3, a new associate justice of the Supreme Court will take the most junior seat. President Bush wants it to be John G. Roberts, currently of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, a position to which Bush himself appointed Roberts in 2003. He is known for his sharp legal mind and he has argued 39 times before the Supreme Court. Roberts is also just 50 years old, and he potentially could serve on the high court for over 30 years. The CNN report.

The spin is that this is an exceptionally well-qualified jurist. His credentials sparkle. Plus, he was confirmed just a couple years ago. It will be hard for the Democrats to simultaneously criticize his record with the knowledge that they supported him just a few years ago.

This is clearly a legacy pick for President Bush. Yet it is also likely to be a political win, too. If the Dems don't filibuster, Roberts is set because the Republicans have 55 solid votes.

Yet there are some openings for Democrats and interest groups to make some points. Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, the Senate Judiciary Committee's ranking member on the subcommittee for courts, has some unanswered questions from 2003, and he will expect an answer. Also, while President Bush praised Roberts' legal record and the fact that he was confirmed with ease recently, he left out the fact that President George H. W. Bush had also nominated ROberts for a federal judgeship, but Democrats did not even give him a vote. Also, Roberts' connections to Bush and Republican legal circles. In fact, Roberts and his law firm were instrumental in arguing to the court in Bush v. Gore in 2000. There is a long record of court cases and legal opinions for the liberals to scour, and I expect they will.

My prediction is that, barring some sort of damning evidence, Roberts will take a seat at the Supreme Court. He will get a few Democrat votes, and I doubt the Dems will filibuster. Democrat senators looking to 2008 will need to chart a careful course to avoid being seen as obstructionist yet also maintaining liberal credentials.

All in all, it could have been worse, but it could have been better. I take comfort, if there is any, in the idea that Roberts is at least a smart legal mind, and that gives me hope that in some of the more complicated cases there would be room for a dissent from a solid conservative majority. The coming months have a court docket that includes an Oregon right-to-die case, really a case about states' vs. federal rights to regulate drugs, a case about the ability for college campuses to ban military recruiters from campus because of discrimination against homosexuals, and a case of parental notification for minor children to have abortions. Those three alone are some hefty issues.

An interesting note: Slate magazine had earlier published a "short list" ordered by likelihood of being nominated. Roberts was second after Michael Luttig.

-- Wenatchee, Wash.