Originally Published: July 14, 2005 11:03 p.m.
When Ronald Reagan nominated Arizona’s Sandra Day O’Connor to the Supreme Court in 1981, conservatives were nervous because no one knew much about her. Reagan assured religious conservatives that they had nothing to fear, though.
Reagan told the Rev. Jerry Falwell that he had spoken to her about abortion, which was the main concern of religious conservatives, and found her to be “OK” on that issue. Reagan assured Falwell and company that she would not disappoint them.
I was vice president of Falwell’s Moral Majority at the time and went on ABC’s “Nightline” to express my reservations that conservatives might not like what they were getting. What I had seen of O’Connor’s record did not persuade me that she would favor restricting abortion.
I was right and Reagan was wrong. Conservatives were disappointed. O’Connor has been the key vote upholding the extra-constitutional ruling known as Roe vs. Wade.
Other justices Republican presidents chose also were disappointments. Reagan picked Anthony Kennedy after his administration misjudged the intensity of opposition to Judge Robert Bork. Kennedy has been a disaster on abortion and religious issues.
The current president’s father nominated David Souter after similar assurances by then-White House chief of staff John Sununu that Souter would be “OK” on issues dear to conservatives. He wasn’t. Souter has been as liberal as any justice in recent memory.
Despite her thin legislative and judicial record in Arizona, there were hints about O’Connor’s legal philosophy from Eleanor Smeal, then-president of the National Organization for Women. Recently, Smeal recalled that she endorsed O’Connor’s nomination before the Senate Judiciary Committee because “I knew then that O’Connor, although a conservative voice, would be one who would not permit the elimination of women’s fundamental rights, including the right to privacy.”
Instead of seeing this as a red flag, most conservatives held their tongues. They wanted to maintain “access” to Reagan.
This history is what makes conservatives nervous about the choice President George W. Bush will make, especially when he speaks of symbolism and the potential nomination of the first Hispanic justice, possibly Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Reagan tried symbolism by naming the first woman, but he lost substance.
We hear this President Bush has learned a lot from the mistakes of his father. Does this include naming a justice that reflects his often-stated views about wanting someone on the bench who doesn’t make law, but rather upholds the Constitution? We are about to find out.
More than campaign promises, President Bush’s first choice of a Supreme Court justice will reveal his core beliefs. He has repeatedly said he wants someone in the model of Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia. These are men who have lived up to the noble objective of faithfully interpreting the Constitution instead of unfaithfully reading into it their personal judicial preferences.
An unnamed “senior administration official” told The New York Times, “The president is going to pick someone who is a true constructionist and who is correct in interpreting the law.”
The left is already mobilizing to smear whoever Bush chooses as an “extremist,” an “out of the mainstream” nominee who will recreate “back-alley abortions” and resurrect the Dark Ages.
Conservatives say they have learned from previous court battles and are not going to be fooled again. They will look beyond assurances that a nominee is “OK” and examine the substance of that nominee’s record and philosophy. Nothing but delivery on the president’s promise will satisfy them.
This is the big one, the main event. If the president does not nominate someone who measures up to his often-stated view of the court and the Constitution, he can forget about conservative support for anything he wants to do during the rest of his term. Even if he names someone whom the Senate eventually rejects, he will get significant support from conservatives and momentum for nominating another conservative.
Perhaps it is a case of hope trumping experience, but my guess is that despite a pro-choice wife and mother, the president will be true to his convictions. My hope is that I am not exposed as a “false prophet.”
E-mail Cal Thomas at www.calthomas.com