Now that the John Roberts nomination is a virtual lock, Senate Democrats can get down to the real business at hand.

That “real” business I speak of would be the destruction of nearly anyone President Bush nominates to fill the vacancy left upon the Supreme Court by departing Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.

But is it Senate Democrats that conservatives around the country should be overtly worried about?

After reading Robert Novak’s piece on September 12, titled: “Replacing O’Connor Could Get Ugly,” I felt justified in updating Mr. Novak’s choice of the word “could” to instead read “will,” as senators--including some very key Republicans--are indicating a rough time ahead for Bush’s next nominee.

Unless Bush happens to nominate someone who is thoroughly palatable to Senate Democrat heavyweights like Charles Schumer and Ted Kennedy, the word of the day in Washington seems to be “warning.”

It should then come as no surprise that when the Senate takes to the floor this week in regard to John Roberts’ pending vote, what will, in fact, be the topic of discussion is the president’s next nominee to the Supreme Court.

Among Senate Democrats who have issued expected warnings, like Kennedy, Schumer, and Senate minority leader Harry Reid, it is Senate Republicans who have advanced the most unsubtle and incautious warnings of their own.

Mostly, these warnings, or “statements of intent” as I choose to view them, are from the usual group of Senate Republican “moderates,” or as the old media prefers to caption them, “mavericks.”

Of chief importance among these “enlightened and principled” moderates in the Senate is Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, who again tried to corner Bush into letting retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor remain on the bench until next June.

Says Specter: “I have raised a certain cautionary signal, that I believe the next nomination is going to be a great deal more contentious than the Roberts nomination.”

Still exhibiting the courage that is a hallmark of the moderate wing among the Senate, Senator Specter was referred to in the Washington Post as warning Bush that he could expect opposition if he nominated any of the 10 federal appeals court candidates blocked by Democrats during his first term.
(www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/21/AR2005092100274.html)
Among those 10 appeals court nominees are a few possible SCOTUS candidates, including the most prominent name to date, 5th Circuit Federal Appellate Judge Priscilla Owen.

Other Senate Republicans who voiced reservations--or posited stipulations--regarding Bush’s next court nominee include Lincoln Chafee, who says that he may oppose a jurist similar to Roberts because of his concern for the balance of the Supreme Court.

Senator Olympia Snowe has also let her concern for the court’s balance of power be known: “This is certainly a different level of evaluation, especially because of the balance of power on the court.”

Though the liberal press would have you believe that Bush goes to bed at night worrying about what they, and Senate Democrats, are planning for his next Supreme Court pick, don’t believe it.

It is the president’s own party that causes him the most concern. Senate Democrats, for all their bluster and rhetoric, could no more stop any nominee that Bush puts forward anymore than they could stop Hillary Clinton from running in 2008.

Bush has shown that he rarely cares what his critics say or do, and instead relies on his instincts, and his principles. But, when members of his own party start to draw political lines in the sand, Bush has at times become concerned enough to broker a compromise.

The New York Times illustrates this years-long, media-driven wish that President Bush--unlike his predecessor, Bill Clinton--can’t pick a tie without consulting a poll: “Polls have shown Mr. Bush's approval ratings near the lowest levels of his presidency. And Senate Republican strategists say that since his nomination of Judge John G. Roberts Jr. to the court, members of their conference have grown increasingly willing to disagree with the White House, notably on matters like stem cell research, Mr. Bush's choice for ambassador to the United Nations and the war in Iraq.”

That’s fine, if it’s even true; but on all those issues, Bush has done what he has wanted to do--the press, Democrats, and the Senate’s “maverick” Republican wing notwithstanding.

Bush has taken some hits lately, but regarding his court picks, he has done well. There is no reason to back away from a pick such as Priscilla Owen, or someone like Appellate Judge Edith Jones.

Let the political rabble—the media, Democrats, and squeamish Republicans-howl. Bush has the chance to shape the highest court of the land for decades to come and he should take it.

Should all other domestic initiatives fail within Bush’s second term, the one item that could singularly define his ability to leave a conservative imprimatur upon the country is the courts.

Bush cannot let the unsettlingly political events of these past few months evolve into a politically expedient yet wrong-headed choice for the Supreme Court.

So, let it get ugly; only let it get done.

Vincent Fiore is a freelance political writer who lives in New York City. He receives e-mail at: Anwar004@aol.com