After an 11-year lull in Supreme Court appointments, liberal and conservative groups are ready for all-out political war.

Thomas Edsall reported July 5 in The Washington Post that both sides say they are certain the fight will exceed $50 million, and a controversial nominee could likely double that amount. Rogan Kersh, a political science professor at Syracuse University who tracks lobbying, told FactCheck.org he estimates spending could reach $100 million, "depending on how long the confirmation fight lasts."  

Eyes on Bush

The liberal group People for The American Way (PFAW) released their first 30-second television spot on the Supreme Court vacancy July 2. Titled “Eyes,” the ad is scheduled to run on national cable stations and selected local markets this week.

The group's president, Ralph G. Neas, told The New York Times that the ad is part of their "preselection message campaign" aimed at lawmakers, the public, and the media. Mr. Neas said the amount spent would depend on fundraising totals in coming days.

PFAW's ad warns Bush to choose carefully his nominee saying, "the eyes of history are upon you." The ad lists on screen the confirmation votes for five of the sitting justices, including O'Connor, who all received overwhelming Senate approval. It asks, "Will President Bush follow history, choosing a judge that protects our fundamental rights and freedoms?"

The lopsided Senate votes in favor of confirming Justices O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer are all correct. However, it is a matter of opinion whether these are the only justices who "protect our fundamental rights." PFAW'S ad fails to mention that Justice Scalia was confirmed by a vote of 98-0 – an appointment PFAW might not endorse today.

The ad asks whether Bush will "divide the country, trying to force through a judge who threatens our basic rights as Americans?"  

Whom to Blame?

The PFAW ad tries to set up Bush for blame should his nominee fail to be supported by all or most Democrats. Meanwhile, the other side is busy blaming Democrats – in advance – for failing to support Bush's yet-to-be-named choice.

We noted this in a June 23 article on an earlier TV ad by Progress for America (PFA), a Republican group that began life last year spending millions on independent ads supporting Bush's re-election. PFA's most recent effort is an Internet ad that ridicules Democrats for opposing two fanciful Bush nominees. An actor portraying a TV news anchor announces solemnly that Democrats opposed Ben Franklin for the court because of his "ties to the energy industry," while the image on screen shows Franklin flying his kite during an electrical storm. Later the "anchor" says Democrats attacked George Washington for "his environmental record of chopping down cherry trees." 

"Some Democrats will attack any Supreme Court nominee," the ad states. That's an opinion and clearly an exaggeration. In theory, Bush could nominate a liberal who would be supported by all Democrats, however unlikely that might be as a practical matter.

This internet ad also fails to tell the whole story when it says that "past attacks (by Democrats) have been called 'a smear' and 'dishonest.'" As we noted in our June 23 article, those are the editorial views of Republican-leaning newspapers, and they refer to the attacks on Ronald Reagan's nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court in 1987.