Democrats should OK Roberts

Senate Democrats face several tough choices regarding President Bush’s nominees for the Supreme Court. Should they vote against John Roberts for chief justice, even if he’s headed for an easy confirmation? And how should they handle the replacement for Sandra Day O’Connor, who could alter the direction of the court for decades?

In our view, Democrats should support Roberts, who has proven to be a highly qualified if overly opaque nominee. By demonstrating their goodwill, Democrats would then be in a better position to influence O’Connor’s successor.

As Sen. Arlen Specter, the Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee, put it, the goal for progressives should be to “maintain balance” on the court. Bush won the election, promising to name conservatives to the bench, and he’s going to do that. The question is: what kinds of conservatives? Reasonable consensus builders or hard-line ideologues?

Backing Roberts won’t alter the court’s “balance,” since he would replace a like-minded jurist, the late William Rehnquist. And by breaking the vicious cycle of partisanship that grips Washington today, Democrats might even help their cause by eliciting a similar gesture from the president.

We do not believe that the administration’s halting response to Hurricane Katrina was rooted in racism. But the racial tensions exposed by the storm are deeply troubling, and Bush should keep that in mind when he chooses the next justice. The High Court needs a uniter in the O’Connor mold, not a divider.

This strategy carries risks for Democrats. In his congressional testimony, Roberts was as secretive as he was smooth, and we understand why The New York Times would publish an editorial opposing him as, as the headline put it, “Too Much of a Mystery.”

But precisely because Roberts was not forthcoming on many issues, such as legalized abortion, perhaps he was leaving room for flexibility and even growth.

We also understand why liberal interest groups are hammering Democratic senators to maximize the vote against Roberts as a signal to the White House that progressive forces are ready to battle Bush’s next nominee to the death. Democratic leader Harry Reid admits he was “very swayed” by the groups to oppose Roberts while conceding the nominee would get “plenty” of Democratic votes.

It’s time for other Democrats to show some independence from these groups. They would probably hate any nominee proposed by this president, a man they deeply despise. Like similar groups on the right, they profit from conflict and bitterness. That’s how they stay in business, raising contributions by raising tempers. But elected lawmakers should have a different agenda. The choice to replace O’Connor is too important.

There are no guarantees here. Since his first year in office, Bush has shown absolutely no interest in working with Democrats, who have responded with obstinate partisanship of their own. But the Bush of today is not the Bush of even a few months ago. He is far weaker.

Perhaps this weakness will make the president less arrogant and more accommodating. Perhaps taking responsibility for the disastrous federal reaction to Katrina reflects a newfound humility. Democrats would be taking a chance by voting for Roberts and extending a hand to the president. But it’s a chance worth taking.

Steve and Cokie Roberts can be contacted by e-mail at [email protected].