WASHINGTON — With the nomination Tuesday of John G. Roberts Jr. to the Supreme Court, President Bush reaffirmed his commitment to a bold-stroke presidency -- but also signaled an uncharacteristic interest in reducing his exposure to political risk.
Bush repeatedly has shown a willingness to accept pitched political battles as the price of pursuing dramatic change. The selection of Roberts, widely considered more conservative than retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, underscores Bush's desire to tilt the court to the right.
"For me as a conservative, it is a very impressive pick because it rejects a superficial analysis that says: 'I'm going to pick a woman or I'm going to take a moderate and dodge a fight,' " said veteran GOP strategist Bill Kristol.
But in Roberts, a judge since 2003 on the powerful U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Bush also chose a nominee unlikely to inspire either the most enthusiasm among hard-core conservatives or the most intense opposition from Democrats and liberal groups.
In effect, Roberts may represent an effort to thread the needle in filling the court vacancy. The selection could offer Bush an opportunity to maximize his chance of a relatively smooth confirmation while minimizing the danger of either conservative disaffection or scorched-earth Democratic opposition.
As a former clerk to Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, a legal official in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations and a reliably conservative voice on the bench, Roberts is well-respected in Republican circles.
Conservative activists welcomed the nominee more enthusiastically than they would have Edith Brown Clement, the justice from the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals who, for part of Tuesday, was Bush's rumored pick.
Roberts also has drawn high marks from experts in both parties for his qualifications, and may present a limited target for Democrats because he has written few decisions in his two years as a federal judge.
Roberts has won praise from some prominent Democratic lawyers -- which could help insulate him against attacks during his confirmation process. Three Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee opposed his confirmation to the appellate court in 2003; the full Senate confirmed him on a voice vote.
