Consensus local reaction to Rehnquist and O'Connor vacancies: more of the same This Daily Nebraskan article reports reactions from local pols and legal figures from left to right, conclusion: more than likely more of the same Locals weigh in on Supreme Court transition By MIKE FRITZ September 08, 2005 As the Supreme Court prepares for its new session, set to begin on Oct. 3, President George W. Bush will do something that has not been done since 1971: Appoint two justices at the same time. With the recent death of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and the July retirement of Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the president potentially could alter the balance of the court. Lancaster County District Court Judge Stephen Burns said the selection process is an imminently important event in the lives of Americans. “This will most likely affect all of U.S. legal policy for the next 20 years,” Burns said. However, at the moment he said it is impossible to know the full extent of the impact because justices’ convictions can change once confirmed. Burns pointed to Dwight D. Eisenhower’s 1953 chief justice appointment of Earl Warren as the worst-case scenario for a president. Eisenhower believed he was placing a moderate in the nation’s highest judicial post. “Warren turned out to lead one of the most liberal courts in our country’s history,” Burns said. The process of replacement, Burns said, has been proceeding in a typical manner. And he doesn’t believe last week’s Hurricane Katrina will have an adverse effect on the hearings. “Obviously, the devastation down there is still on everyone’s minds, but I don’t anticipate a diversion,” Burns said. The Senate will begin the confirmation hearings for John G. Roberts – whom Bush appointed to succeed Rehnquist as chief justice – on Monday. Many of Roberts’ views on major issues remain unclear, including religion’s role in government, affirmative action and abortion. Prior to Rehnquist’s death, Roberts seemed to be headed toward confirmation as associate justice. Jessica Moenning, executive director of the Nebraska Republican Party, commended Bush’s appointment of Roberts to chief justice. “He has made a wise choice that will not only be good for the Republican Party but also the entire country,” she said. Steve Achelpohl, the Nebraska Democratic Party chairman, said the transition to Roberts from Rehnquist would have little effect on the court’s makeup because the two men share similar judicial philosophies. However, he believes O’Connor’s successor will be a crucial choice because of her history as a swing voter. Achelpohl noted O’Connor’s ability to find a middle ground on decisive issues. In 2000, it was her vote that struck down Nebraska’s partial-birth abortion statute. “Her replacement will be of great concern to citizens who care about civil liberties and the right to privacy,” Achelpohl said. Rick Duncan, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln College of Law, said although these are important nominations, they might not have a drastic impact. “Both Rehnquist and O’Connor throughout their careers were moderate conservatives and most likely they will be replaced by the same,” Duncan said. He said Bush could leave his imprint on the future Supreme Court, though. Duncan said the possibility of the president also replacing Justice John Paul Stevens – who is 85 and considered by many to be the most liberal on the bench – could cause an ideological shift. “A Stevens replacement would be the most important,” Duncan said. Achelpohl hopes that whoever replaces the outgoing justices will practice stare decisis – the legal term used for following precedent – when confirmed. “That’s the underlying issue here: Will these new justices follow former court decisions or will they let their own ideology get in the way?” Achelpohl said. Duncan feels it would be in the best interest of the country to de-politicize the process. “I mean, these people are supposed to be interpreting the law for all Americans,” Duncan said.