Historically, as a general rule, presidents have nominated
individuals that broadly share their ideological views. However,
most presidents tend to exercise restraint in their selections, as
extreme views invite possibly successful challenges.
In my opinion, President George W. Bush has made surprising
choices both times. Both of his candidates are essentially
insulated, with confirmation assured. Both candidates leave all the
left and right partisans very dissatisfied, a good sign. Both
candidates are moderate, as is much of the American public.
Neither candidate is a professional fraud, political lackey, or
an embarrassment within the country’s legal institutions
““ as Clarence Thomas has been and continues to be. Neither
candidate can be “predicted;” therefore, both have
credibility and autonomy in their decisions.
The president (perhaps weighing the first lady’s wise
counsel) has chosen beyond typical political party loyalties. Given
that the president’s approval polls are at an all-time low,
his Supreme Court choices are that much more remarkable.
I have to chuckle when I recall extremist, right-wing numskulls
who said that then-candidate David Souter was OK, 15 long years
ago.
To his credit and legacy of purpose, this president seems to
have made picks worthy of the history of the court and worthy of
its importance. He could have chosen some Pat Robertson shill, and
most likely still survived a Senate confirmation fight.
I can only be amused and pleased that the current candidate has
publicly stated that her own favorite Supreme Court justice is
Warren. No, not allegedly conservative Chief Justice Earl Warren
““ an Eisenhower-Nixon choice who turned out to be one of the
Court’s most liberal jurists ““ but that great
women’s rights, Roe v. Wade and separation of powers jurist,
Chief Justice Warren Burger.
No one ever really knows how a jurist will rule on a given case
before the Court, and that is how it should be. Nor should
candidates be expected to say how they will rule during the
Congressional confirmation process; if they did overstate their
personal views publicly, they would most likely then have to recuse
themselves from those very same cases, as any first-year law
student learns.
With all that I disagree with regarding the president’s
policy decisions, I am glad to support both choices for the high
court.
Matsas is a former staff member for UCLA Student Affairs and
the Tom Bradley International Center.