For weeks, Republicans have said the battle over David Souter's Supreme Court successor would be their best chance this year to rally their base, raise money, organize activists and, if they're lucky, chart a path back to power. All of that is still possible. But the early reaction from party leaders to President Obama's choice of federal judge Sonia Sotomayor suggests that another battle stirs within the GOP itself.
Indeed, two days after Colin Powell went on national television to respond to the verbal smackdown he's drawn recently from Dick Cheney and Rush Limbaugh, Republicans appeared divided over how forcefully to challenge the nomination of the first Hispanic woman to the Supreme Court.
If the GOP's early responses seem a bit too rehearsed, it's because they are.
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele was one of the first out of the gate. One week after urging his party to challenge Obama more aggressively, Steele said in a statement that Republicans will "reserve judgment" on Sotomayor "until there has been a thorough and thoughtful examination of her legal views." He added that the nomination creates a "perfect opportunity for America to have a thoughtful discussion about the role of the Supreme Court in our daily lives." The RNC even highlighted Steele's "judicial temperament" in charting a moderate course, playing up the more partisan reactions from then-Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean to John Roberts and Samuel Alito in 2005.
"You want to be careful," Steele said Tuesday in an interview with CNN Radio. "You don't want to be seen as a bully in this situation."
The RNC strategy is clear: Position yourself at the outset as a moderate broker so that, if you do choose to pick a fight later, you have the credibility to mount a more effective opposition. Several senators echoed that approach, including Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, who cited Sotomayor's "compelling life story and long record of judicial service" as keys to her possible support.
Still, others made clear their intentions to raise questions about Sotomayor's judicial philosophy. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., one of 11 sitting Senate Republicans who opposed Sotomayor's nomination to the federal appeals court in 1998, said Tuesday that he's "troubled" by some of her statements, particularly one in which she said the federal appeals courts are "where policy is made."
"In my view," Brownback said, "the role of a justice is as an umpire, not a policymaker."
Indeed, Sotomayor's views on the role courts play in policymaking has emerged as the chief rallying cry among conservatives. Mitt Romney, who's positioning himself as a leading voice among 2012 presidential hopefuls, called Sotomayor's selection "troubling," saying "her public statements make it clear she has an expansive view of the role of the judiciary."
"Historically, the court is where judges interpret the Constitution and apply the law," Romney added. "It should never be the place 'where policy is made.' Like any nominee, she deserves a fair and thorough hearing. What the American public deserves is a judge who will put the law above her own personal political philosophy."
Mike Huckabee, Romney's main rival for conservative support in the 2008 GOP presidential primary, echoed those comments, saying Sotomayor's nomination is "the clearest indication yet that President Obama's campaign promises to be a centrist and think in a bipartisan way were mere rhetoric."
But Huckabee touched on another conservative rallying cry -- Obama's claim that he was looking for a nominee who would show "empathy" in their rulings. "The notion that appellate court decisions are to be interpreted by the 'feelings' of the judge is a direct affront of the basic premise of our judicial system that is supposed to apply the law without personal emotion," he said. "If she is confirmed, then we need to take the blindfold off Lady Justice."
If the GOP's early responses seem a bit too rehearsed, it's because they are. Republicans, in fact, have been preparing for Obama's announcement for weeks. "We've got the packages written," Richard Viguerie, a veteran conservative organizer, told the New York Times this month. "We're waiting right now to put a name in."
In a statement this week, Viguerie explained why. He said Sotomayor's nomination creates the "first opportunity in over 40 years for conservatives to have a national debate on the role of the judiciary." And, he added, it's a debate they can win. "Conservatives always win ideological battles," he said, "either on the short run or the long run."
Of course, the fight over a high court nomination isn't always a reliable indicator of a party's future prospects. Democrats lost a fierce battle over Clarence Thomas in 1991, but they went on to reclaim the White House one year later. Democrats barely mounted a challenge to Roberts in 2005 and they were rebuffed on Alito, but just over three years later they control two of the three branches of government.
In the meantime, forgive the GOP for not looking ahead to the consolation prize.
Want to stay ahead of the curve? Sign up for National Journal’s AM & PM Must Reads. News and analysis to ensure you don’t miss a thing.
Join the Discussion