Senators Launch Long-Awaited Battle Over Court

Within minutes of the news that Sandra Day O’Connor would retire from the Supreme Court, Senate Republicans and Democrats fired the first shots from their long-readied rhetorical arsenal.

Republicans urged Democrats on Friday not to reject her successor on ideological grounds.

“Whoever the nominee is, the Senate should focus its attention on judicial qualifications -- not personal political beliefs,” Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said.

Democrats urged Republicans to pick a nominee acceptable to both parties.

“I would hope that we would have someone take her place in the Supreme Court that serves [O’Connor’s] model,” Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said. “She is somebody that brought a voice of moderation ... to the Supreme Court.”

The two sides have been preparing for months to battle over the next vacancy on the court. If President Bush picks a conservative ideologue, Democrats have threatened to use every means at their disposal -- including the filibuster -- to block the nomination.

And Republicans have suggested they would return to pursuing the “nuclear option” -- a bid to change Senate rules to ban filibusters of judicial nominees.

GOP leaders were pushing for the rules change until a compromise reached in May by 14 senators -- seven Republicans and seven Democrats -- thwarted the effort.

Under the compromise, the Republicans agreed not to support the effort to ban the filibuster for judicial nominees, and the Democrats agreed not to use the stalling tactic except in “extraordinary circumstances.”

Bush’s pick to replace O’Connor is likely to test whether the compromise holds.

Senators chose their words carefully Friday and -- at least on the surface -- emphasized moderation. But each side’s language included subtle reminders of the filibuster issue.

Democrats emphasized that Bush should choose a consensus candidate -- meaning one whom Democrats, even if they opposed the pick, did not consider a conservative ideologue.

Republicans reminded Democrats that they could still resort to the “nuclear option” and change the balance of power between the parties when it came to picking federal judges.

“I look forward to a fair process that culminates in an up-or-down vote to fill the vacancy in time for the start of the court’s new term” in October, said Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.).

Because O’Connor was often the swing vote on 5-4 Supreme Court decisions, members of Congress have warned that the debate over her successor could become an intense ideological confrontation between the two parties.

“This is a very polarized country when it comes to the issues which will come to the Supreme Court of the United States,” said Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“I would expect people to want their choice. And everybody can’t have their own way.” Specter’s committee will hold hearings on Bush’s nominee.

The two parties are taking different approaches as they consider the confirmation process.

Democrats, who want more time to probe a nominee’s political leanings, are urging caution and deliberation.

“More important than rushing is that we find a consensus candidate,” Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said.

Republicans, who want to give Democrats less time to look for fault in a nominee, are urging speed.

Like Kyl, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) said he was hoping for “a fair confirmation process ... that will ensure the Supreme Court is at full strength to start its next term in October.”

Specter said it was too soon to tell how long it would take to review a nomination. He did not rule out the possibility of holding hearings in August but he indicated that September was more likely.

But in a sign of impatience within the GOP, a former chief counsel for the judiciary panel who briefed reporters on behalf of the Senate’s Republican leaders indicated that they would like to move faster than that.

“The committee has the capacity to move these nominations through in an expeditious manner, provided there is fair play on both sides,” said the former counsel, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Democrats emphasized that it would help the confirmation process if Bush made an effort to consult with members of their party before choosing O’Connor’s successor.

“There is a rich history and tradition of consultation between the president and the Senate on Supreme Court nominees,” said Sen. Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee.

“I hope that the president will honor not only Justice O’Connor’s record of service but also her judicial independence by respecting that tradition of meaningful consultation and in finding a nominee who will unite and not further divide the nation.”

Leahy said he made that point directly to the president when Bush phoned him after O’Connor’s resignation was announced.