July 5, 2005
National Journal
The retirement of Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has set into motion an unprecedented campaign by activist groups on both sides of the aisle eager to play a role in selecting her replacement. In a July 1 interview with NationalJournal.com's Jennifer Koons, Nan Aron, president of the left-leaning Alliance for Justice, and Wendy Long, counsel to the conservative Judicial Confirmation Network, preview their respective strategies for influencing the coming debate. Edited excerpts follow. For previous Insider Interviews, click here.
Q: I know most people were expecting an announcement from [Chief Justice William] Rehnquist. How does O'Connor's retirement change things for you (if at all)?
Aron: It doesn't change our strategy. I think we are urging as strongly as we possibly can, which we would have done had the vacancy been Rehnquist, White House consultation with the Democrats over the choice of the new nominee. On the other hand, clearly this vacancy certainly raises the stakes because the new appointee might well tip the balance of the Supreme Court.
Long: I would agree with Nan that it certainly doesn't change any strategy. Certainly, what the president needs to do is exactly what he said he was going to do with any vacancy that occurs on the Supreme Court, which is to appoint a justice of outstanding legal ability and intellect, personal integrity and a judicial philosophy in the mold of Justice [Antonin] Scalia and Justice [Clarence] Thomas. And any resignation would give him the opportunity to fulfill that promise, and he certainly should, and I believe will, do that regardless of whose seat is being vacated.
Q: Who should be on the president's short-list of nominees? Should a woman automatically be considered?
Long: It would be disrespect[ful] to Justice O'Connor to consider that there ought to be some sort of quota or to brand certain seats -- "women" or "minority" seats. I think that's certainly not her legacy. I don't think that's something she would support. And it's wonderful that we've arrived at a time when both women and minorities are serving on the court.... And now what's important are qualifications and merit and sort of putting aside gender and race and all of those things. So that's a good thing and I think that's more consistent with Justice O'Connor's legacy.
Aron: We believe that President Bush should find a candidate who not only has an exemplary record in the law, but an individual who will uphold individual rights and freedoms. A candidate who has an open mind and whose decisions will not be guided by a political philosophy. And an individual with a demonstrated commitment to equal justice.
Q: Nan, what are the most important (i.e. non-negotiable) characteristics of a potential nominee on your side?
Aron: Well, in addition to an individual who's got an exemplary record in the law... we also want a nominee who will protect individual rights and freedoms. Who will rule with an open mind, without a political agenda. And, who will make sure that the court protects all Americans and not always sides with powerful special interests. Those are our basic standards.
Q: Wendy, several conservative organizations, including right-leaning blogs like confirmthem.com, have vocalized opposition to the potential nomination of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Is this the president's prerogative and will the JCN stand behind whoever the president chooses?
Long: First of all, it's very much the president's prerogative.... Given the indications of what he has done so far with his judicial nominations, he'll make an outstanding choice. And it's nothing he's been secretive about. He campaigned in two elections saying he was going to appoint someone who would be a neutral umpire of the law, who would apply the Constitution and federal law as written and not implement policy or personal preferences from the bench. So I think that's what we can expect. I think he will continue in that same vein with the Supreme Court nominees.
Aron: Well, we are hoping that President Bush departs from past practice, lays down his arms and extends an olive branch.
Q: Let's turn to the Senate. Will there be a targeted campaign to influence the 14 senators who compromised [PDF] on the filibuster fight?
Aron: Our campaign is directed at all 100 senators. All eyes are on all 100.
Long: I would agree with that. I think that all 100 senators need to be accountable for their actions. Certainly they need to be accountable for giving, as President Bush said, any nominee a fair hearing, a process that has dignity and a fair up and down vote. And, from what we've seen, three of the outstanding nominees who were approved as a result of the compromise that these 14 senators entered into. They were jurists -- Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown and William Pryor -- in the mold -- exactly what we've been discussing -- that President Bush promised.
Now, if the Democrats, who are party to that agreement, suddenly start saying, "gee it's an extraordinary circumstance" just because it's a Supreme Court nomination, or that it's an extraordinary circumstance because President Bush nominates someone who shares his judicial philosophy just as these three did, I think that we will see the Republicans who entered the compromise calling that and saying, "no, no, no. That's not what this is about." And I don't think that's going to fly as an "extraordinary circumstance."
Q: Will there be coordination between like-minded organizations?
Aron: The progressive organizations are gearing up in an unprecedented way. Over 100 organizations representing millions of Americans around the country are working together to ensure that only a candidate respectful of rights and protections is confirmed. We have a very well-coordinated effort under way, which has been taking place now for decades. We have a number of organizations working together on this effort and many of us and these groups are battle-tested and ready to take action.
Long: When Nan speaks of "battle-tested," I hope she's not referring to the battles to smear Judge [Robert] Bork and Justice Thomas. I hope that what we can expect is close scrutiny, fair scrutiny, lots of good questions. Those are all appropriate. But I hope that we won't see a smear campaign against any justice that this president would nominate.
And to get back to your question about coordination, certainly those of us who are interested in defending the president's nominees are speaking to one another and trying to use our resources judicially. And what they will be used for is to acquaint the American people with the nominee, probably someone that they're not going to be very familiar with -- because most federal judges are not household names and people don't know them....
Q: Nan, how invested will the general public be in this process? How much of your effort will be devoted to educating Americans about the court and the nomination process?
Aron: We have been involved already in efforts to educate Americans... about the Supreme Court, what the court justices do and just what the stakes are with a vacancy. We released a poll yesterday that reflects the high interest Americans have in this topic already.... [It] indicates that if George Bush sends up a nominee who is weak on individual rights and freedoms, Americans will call on their senators to oppose that candidate.
Q: Wendy, could you talk really briefly about the importance of building early momentum?
Long: I think it's important that those who would defend the president's nominees do get out early and help explain to the American public who the nominee is and what his or her record is. Because I think what happened with Judge Bork and Justice Thomas is that we were all sitting at home doing our jobs and taking care of our kids and just expecting that the Senate would ask appropriate questions and the confirmation process would go forth the way it always has throughout American history, but unfortunately that's not true anymore. We've now learned our lesson.... We will try to get out there early and establish the facts about the nominee.
Q: Last question. Can there be any compromise on a potential nominee's view on Roe v. Wade?
Long: The question of how a justice would vote -- if the court were ever to revisit any case implicating the holding in Roe, which isn't before the court now -- when justices or would-be justices, including Ruth Bader Ginsburg, have been asked such questions during their confirmation hearings, they have all refused to answer them. And certainly, I believe the administration is not asking such questions and, indeed, the president has said repeatedly he has no litmus test on particular issues....
Aron: Let's not be disingenuous here.... If one reviews the record of every court of appeals nominee sent up by the Bush administration, not one has a public record of support for the freedom to choose.... Number two: It will be incumbent upon the nominee to provide the American people with his or her views about a range of issues -- civil rights, voting rights, women's rights, environmental and worker protections, as well as the right to choose. Whatever the Bush administration knows about a nominee must be shared with the rest of the American people. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the Democrats to insist that nominees provide answers, documents -- the facts -- before a vote is taken.
|
