July 21, 2005
By Stephen Dinan
Washington Times
Conservative groups are eager to spend their $20 million war chest to support Judge John G. Roberts Jr.'s nomination to the Supreme Court, but the main liberal groups have not decided whether to wage an all-out fight over the nomination.
Progress for America, which has raised $18 million to defend the nominee, released its first television commercial yesterday calling for "a fair up-or-down vote" for Judge Roberts.
"Judge Roberts is really the left's worst nightmare as a nominee because he's an individual we all feel we want as a justice on the court, but just as much as we want him as our neighbor," said Benjamin L. Ginsberg, a lawyer for both of President Bush's campaigns and an adviser to the group.
Republican strategists had worried that if Mr. Bush had selected a nominee less appealing to conservatives -- such as Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales -- the conservative groups would not be willing to spend money defending him.
But with Mr. Bush's choice of Judge Roberts, the conservative groups "are willing to go to the mat for this guy," one strategist said.
Progress for America's first television ad will run on national cable news networks and in Washington during the weekend political talk shows. The group will run radio ads and Internet ad banners and plans to target 20 states with a grass-roots program.
In addition to the group's $18 million bank account, the Judicial Confirmation Network also has raised $3 million to defend the nominee.
Wendy E. Long, counsel to the confirmation network, said it can go still higher if need be.
"Some of our big donors have said to us, 'Whatever it takes,' " she said.
Most liberal groups, meanwhile, have expressed serious concerns about Judge Roberts, but haven't taken a public stance of opposition.
If they do choose to oppose him, though, Ralph G. Neas, president of People for the American Way said they can put together a huge coalition of grass-roots organizations including environmental organizations, pro-choice groups, MoveOn.org, labor unions and civil rights groups, much like the 300-group coalition that opposed Robert Bork's nomination to the Supreme Court in the 1980s.
"I'm not saying there are going to be that many, but if there is a decision by the organizations to oppose John Roberts, then we're probably talking about many more than are currently in the coalition," he said.
Many liberal groups first opposed Judge Roberts' nomination to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. He was confirmed by unanimous consent in the Senate.
But the Supreme Court is a much bigger battle, and the groups must decide whether it's worth spending their money to fight Judge Roberts' nomination.
Pro-choice groups were particularly stirred up over the nomination, pointing to some past statements by Judge Roberts about the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. Seeing their opponents' outrage, pro-life groups promised to defend Judge Roberts.
Ms. Long said that if they choose to, there are a number of conservative grass-roots groups that don't focus solely on the courts that could jump into the fray, such as the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family.
Mr. Neas said that for now, his group will raise and spend money trying to frame what's at stake on the Supreme Court itself.
"What we're going to do more than anything else is share our point of view for what's at stake," he said. "If John Roberts does share the judicial philosophy of [Justice Clarence] Thomas and [Justice Antonin] Scalia and not the judicial philosophy of Sandra Day O'Connor, dozens of precedents are at risk."
Ms. Long said the entire reason the conservative groups exist is to prevent liberals from blocking nominations.
"We wouldn't be here if they hadn't waged these wars," she said.
Memos purloined from Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats' computer files in 2002 showed that the liberal groups pressured Democratic senators to block some of Mr. Bush's nominees to lower federal courts.
But Mr. Neas said the groups don't matter as much as the nominee's performance before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
"I think they play an important role, I think they involve a lot of people, but the roles pale in comparison to what happens before the Senate Judiciary Committee," he said.
Click here for full story
|
