GOP Should Use Supreme Court Debate To 'Explain' Its Views To Public, Rove Writes In Opinion Piece

Main Category: Litigation / Medical Malpractice
Also Included In: Public Health;  Women's Health / Gynecology
Article Date: 08 May 2009 - 2:00 PDT

email to a friend   printer friendly   opinions  

President Obama "has several things working in his favor" in obtaining confirmation of his Supreme Court nominee to replace Justice David Souter, Karl Rove, who was senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to former President George W. Bush, writes in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece. Rove also served on the Bush administration's committee for recommending Supreme Court nominees. He writes that in addition to the Democratic control of the Senate and the support of the Senate Judiciary Committee chair, Obama will benefit from the fact that Republicans "generally do not treat Supreme Court nominees as roughly as do Democrats." In addition, because Souter "turned out to be reliably liberal, ... [a] liberal replacing a liberal will smooth the path for most potential nominees." However, Obama could "pay a price" for his votes as a senator against confirming Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito after expressing praise for their qualifications. "By voting against well-qualified conservative nominees, Mr. Obama lost the ability to argue that a well-qualified liberal should be given the benefit of the doubt," according to Rove. He adds that because Obama voted for a filibuster of Alito, as president he "can't insist that his nominee has a right to a full Senate vote."

Rove continues that Republicans should use the nomination process to "explain their view of the judiciary's proper role and why Mr. Obama's desire that a nominee have 'empathy' and 'understanding' ... is an amorphous basis on which to pick a justice." He goes on to ask whether "the 'empathy standard' should apply to the unborn" or to other contentious areas, such as gun rights and expression of religious beliefs. According to Rove, "What Mr. Obama wants in a nominee isn't really 'empathy' and 'understanding,'" but rather "a liberal, activist Supreme Court justice." He continues, "Senate Republicans may not be able to stop Mr. Obama's nominee, but they can explain to the public the party's reasons for opposing judges who think of themselves as legislators with life tenure." He adds that "GOP senators appear to be comfortable making this argument, believing that the country favors judges who strictly apply the law." Rove concludes, "This confirmation battle will remind people that elections have consequences, few of which are as important or lasting as a Supreme Court nomination" (Rove, Wall Street Journal, 5/7).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women's Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women's Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

• Additional
• References
• Citations