New Justice Warning

"For me to know and you to find out."

That was Chief Justice William Rehnquist's comment to reporters over the weekend in response to speculation that he would imminently retire. Columnist Robert Novak and internet blogger Matt Drudge had reported that the Chief would synchronize an announcement with the touchdown of the President's plane from the G-8 Summit last Friday afternoon. Our sources in Washington seemed to confirm that expectation.

Well...it didn't happen.

The issue that is before us now is a replacement for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

The President is thought to favor an Hispanic-American, and if possible an Hispanic individual he knows. Those assumptions would seem to point to former Texas Supreme Court justice and current Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. In the face of conservative criticism over Gonzales' wobbly record on life issues, Bush, in an interview with USA Today, defended Gonzales as "a friend." In true Texas style, the President also made it clear that he sticks with his friends. We believe such an attitude is fine for a cub scout brawl or a Toby Keith ballad, but a desire to go down with your buddy just for the sake of it isn't an acceptable rationale when choosing a Supreme Court justice.

Should Rehnquist retire, the plot thickens. President Bush could appoint a strict constructionist judge like the our own 4th Circuit's J. Michael Luttig to fill the solid Rehnquist's seat, elevate originalist Scalia or Thomas to the solid Chief position and appoint blow-with-the-wind Gonzales to the squishy O'Connor slot. The net effect of that (see the column by National Review Online's Ramesh Ponnuru) would be a zero sum game.

Make no mistake about it. If zero sum is the result, then all the hard-fought 2000. 2002, and 2004 Presidential and U.S. Senate election victories that make solid, lifetime court appointments possible were fought in vain. We would be foolish and irresponsible to settle for that.