Passing judgment

By Tony Staley
Compass Editor

Watching the responses to Pres. George W. Bush's first two Supreme Court nominees has been interesting and informative.

First came John Roberts, initially nominated to succeed retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, then to become Chief Justice following the death of William Rehnquist.

Now attention has shifted to White House counsel Harriet Miers, nominated on Oct. 3 to succeed O'Connor.

Many Democrats and liberal groups were wary of Roberts, fearing, among other things, that he could lead the court to overturn Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion-on-demand as the law of the land.

Throughout the confirmation process, Roberts' supporters, who are confident that he favors a Roe reversal, were pleased with his evasive answers. Also in play was the issue of whether it was proper to mention that Roberts is a Catholic and how that could affect his rulings.

Enter Harriet Miers and a sudden role reversal. Suddenly, conservatives - fearing that she, like O'Connor, might favor abortion - are demanding answers to questions they wanted Roberts to dodge. And Miers' response that no one knows her views on the subject, because she's never discussed them with anyone, doesn't please them either.

Meanwhile, the White House, to convince conservatives that Miers favors overturning Roe, stressed that she is an Evangelical Christian, making the issue of a nominee's religion no longer an unmentionable topic.

It's too early to tell how it will end. But the hearings promise to be wild as Republican and Democrat Judicial Committee members promise many hard questions for Miers and support from the President's base seems slim. The process could be far more involving than Hollywood's imagination.

But in the end, we must never forget that ultimately what's at stake are millions of innocent unborn human lives.