News-Record.com

President Bush finally has a Supreme Court vacancy to fill. This is part of what last year's election was all about.

It's really more interesting that the departing justice is Sandra Day O'Connor rather than William Rehnquist, who was expected to go sooner because of his health.

Rehnquist is chief justice, so who replaces him will be important. But he's a reliable conservative, and even Democrats should not object too strenuously to the appointment of another conservative to replace him.

O'Connor, however, is more moderate and sometimes breaks with the conservative bloc. She provides a key swing vote, and has sided with the liberals on abortion and other cases, such as this week's Ten Commandments rulings. In order to maintain a balance on the court, Democrats will fight the nomination of someone who is more conservative than O'Connor.

The question is whether they'll use their heavy weaponry -- the filibuster -- to back up their demands.

I don't think Bush should give in to them on this one. The risk of nominating someone you think is a moderate is that you might be wrong. Bush's father put David Souter on the court. He was supposed to be a moderate, yet he usually ends up in camp with the liberals.

Now, when John Paul Stevens or Ruth Bader Ginsburg retires -- and both are getting up there -- Bush probably should be more generous toward the Democrats. Stevens and Ginsburg are liberals, and you can argue that it's fair to replace them with moderates. Even then, I certainly wouldn't expect Bush to look for clones of those two.

For now, Bush has an opportunity to solidify a conservative majority on the court, and he should take it.

That's one reason why a majority of Americans voted for him in November.

If John Kerry were president, you can bet he would seek to fill O'Connor's seat with someone to the left of center. Bush has every right to tug the court to the right.

But he'll have to win the battle in the Senate first.