WASHINGTON, D.C. – After considerable speculation on the part of politicians, the press, and the public, President George W. Bush has announced that John Roberts, a judge for the United States Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia, is his pick to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. As expected, pundits on both sides of the ideological aisle have leapt into action, variously expressing glee, foretelling doom, or – on rare occasion – calmly asking questions and sharing concerns.Instead of fulfilling wife Laura’s dream of another female justice, or helping to seat the first Hispanic high court justice as he had indicated he would like to do, the president selected a young – and some say impeccably conservative – white male jurist from the Beltway. If his nomination survives the Republican-controlled Senate, the 50-year-old Roberts could become a familiar and influential decision maker for decades to come.

The vacancy left by O’Connor, who was often the determining vote on a court frequently divided over issues concerning states’ rights, affirmative action, reproductive freedoms, and speech, has left the future of the Supreme Court in question and any replacement jurist likely to come under intense scrutiny. Although Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist remains in his position, given his ongoing battle with thyroid cancer it is likely that a second vacancy will come open within the near future, further influencing the direction of the court. It is thought by some that Bush may introduce a minority candidate if a second position opens and he has solidified a right leaning bench with Roberts’ installation.

Determining how Roberts is likely to vote if he becomes a member of the Supreme Court is problematic. Although he has consistently acted as a conservative in the few controversial cases that he has heard, it is not known whether his decisions were a result of personal or judicial philosophy. Although some conservative groups have called for his immediate confirmation, some individuals have confessed a fear that the soft-spoken man might well produce a “Souter problem,” meaning that he might not be a “real” conservative, who has ruled based upon his personal ideologies.

Of chief concern to many of Roberts’ socially liberal opponents is his judicial record on abortion. While representing the government as Deputy Solicitor General, the Roman Catholic argued against federal family planning funding in a brief before the Supreme Court, stating “that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overruled” because “the Court’s conclusion that there is a fundamental right to an abortion… finds no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution.” As a representative of conservative administrations, Roberts has argued on behalf of the Department of Health and Human Services to deny recipients of federal family planning dollars from participating in abortion-related activities, counseling, or referrals. Within the same capacity, he filed a “friend of the court” brief supporting Operation Rescue and six other anti-abortion protestors who blocked clinic access, concluding that their actions did not discriminate against women, since men incapable of seeking abortions but accompanying women were equally unable to access buildings. Given that Roberts does not have a history of clearly acting as an ideological crusader who promotes his politics from the bench, it is uncertain whether his statements reflects a moral disagreement with abortion rights or a professional disagreement with how the cases were presented and/or resolved as legal entities.

Tony Perkins, president of the neo con Family Research Council hopes that Roberts has merely been silent, but rules on matters from his heart. “The president promised us a judge along the lines of (Antonin) Scalia and (Clarence) Thomas, and he kept his promise,” Perkins assured supporters after Roberts’ nomination was announced. The FRC, like other socially conservative groups, hopes that a Roberts’ confirmation would solidify a rightward turn on the bench. Perkins proposed that such a change would place the court “back to where it operates within its proper boundaries and respects the proper role of legislatures.”

Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) praised the man who served as an attorney for both President Ronald Reagan and the first President George Bush’s administrations for being “well-respected on both sides of the aisle,” as evidenced by the willingness of Democrats to confirm Roberts for the appellate court two years ago, when bipartisan passions were particularly high. Lest conservatives get the wrong idea about where Democrats stand on the issue of a possible Roberts’ confirmation, the top-ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), assured the nation that Roberts would not be handed “a free pass for a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court.”

In announcing his choice to the nation, Bush avoided all controversy concerning Roberts’ possible views on federalism – a pivotal during upcoming confirmation hearings. Instead, the president chose to focus on the fact that Roberts is a respected Washington attorney and well-liked family man with a scholarly mind and athletic past. Unmentioned were controversial opinions presented in court by the man called “brilliant” even by those who disagree with his decisions, including court arguments in support of governmentally sanctioned school prayer at graduation ceremonies and opposed to tortured Gulf War veterans’ access to federal courts in order to pursue claims.

Unlike contentious past battles over court appointees, most memorably Judge Robert Bork, Democrats have been slow and cautious in their responses, indicating that before options including a possible filibuster are explored, they would like to hear and consider answers from Roberts to key questions of concern, including those regarding his service in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations. Having seen O’Connor move left during her 24 years on the court, Democrats may have learned that conservative biographical details do not always translate into consistently conservative Supreme Court decisions. Fortunately, Roberts’ recommendation was made early enough for Senate Democrats to thoroughly research and evaluate the record of the man who assured the nation during the announcement of his nomination that, “I always got a lump in my throat whenever I walked up those marble steps” leading to the Supreme Court building.