WASHINGTON — When Vermont Senator James Jeffords' departure from the Republican Party becomes official June 5, the Democratic Party will have control of the U.S. Senate. Perhaps more importantly, it will have the reins of the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee, which has to confirm nominations to the federal judiciary and the Supreme Court.

“If the pro-abortion crowd could do one thing, it would tip the balance on the Judiciary Committee,” said Raymond Flynn, president of Catholic Alliance.

“It's really disappointing. The president will have to reconsider who he'll appoint as judges,” added the former U.S. ambassador to the Vatican.

Democrats now control the Senate with a 50-49-1 edge, with Jeffords, the Senate's lone independent, siding with Democrats in organizational votes.

Jeffords acknowledged at a press conference with Vermont journalists May 25 that his defection was triggered in part by his pro-abortion sentiments. He cited abortion as one of the key areas “where I will disagree with the president on very fundamental issues.”

The Senate shakeup also means that Vermont's other senator, Democrat Patrick Leahy, will begin chairing the judicial committee June 6. And he promises not to be hasty in approving President Bush's judicial picks. First up will be reinstating the role of the American Bar Association in analyzing the backgrounds of potential judges.

Bush had responded to longstanding conservative complaints about the bar association's alleged liberal bias by canceling its role in vetting all presidential judicial appointments.

“The White House ended the 50-year-old partnership with the ABA for peer review vetting,” said Sen. Leahy's spokesman, David Carle. “The [bar association's] peer-review vetting will be done on the Senate's clock now.”

But Carle denied that Sen. Leahy would block most of Bush's selections for the federal courts.

“As was the case in previous administrations, the bulk of cases will be confirmed,” said Carle. But, he added, “It is a signal that nominees must be more mainstream.”

Douglas Johnson, spokesman for National Right to Life Committee, responded that the nine Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee before the Senate shakeup were anything but mainstream in their position on life issues.

“You've got Leahy, Kennedy, Biden, Durbin and Cantwell — all Catholics. They are all vehement defenders of Roe v. Wade,” Johnson, himself a Catholic, told the Register.

Johnson warned Democrats that their stalling tactics might backfire politically, especially if Bush calls attention to their obstructionism.

“There could be a backlash if Democrats won't approve judges who refuse to make an ideological pledge. Not all 51 senators will follow these leaders [on the judiciary committee] if public sentiment is against them,” said Johnson, National Right to Life's legislative director.

By contrast, abortion activists were ecstatic over the shift in Senate control to supporters of on-demand abortion.

“When it comes to the future of the U.S. Supreme Court and a woman's right to choose, Sen. Jeffords will go down in history as the man who saved America,” Gloria Feldt, president of Planned Parenthood, said in a statement to the Register.

Pro-Abortion ‘Hysteria’

Cathleen Cleaver, pro-life spokeswoman for the U.S. bishops, said that such comments show why people are becoming increasingly skeptical of the abortion lobby.

“They are sounding more and more hysterical and they're becoming more out-of-touch with mainstream Americans,” Cleaver said.

But Cleaver did acknowledge that the Senate shift would affect the fortunes of the unborn.

“We know the courts are very important to any chance to confer rights to all citizens,” Cleaver said. “We have important nominations that Senator Leahy, the new judiciary committee chairman, could do a lot to stall.”

Political observers believe Bush will continue to place judges who share his “constructionist” interpretation of the Constitution. These judges, Johnson said, are almost always pro-life.

“What [Bush's spokesmen] have said is they are going to continue nominating those judges who are not legislating from the bench. That is of course antithetical to Roe v. Wade and as well as to the Stenberg case [striking down Nebraska's ban on partial-birth abortions] decided last June,” Johnson said.

Larry Sabato, professor of politics at the University of Virginia, said fighting for judges who are pro-life will not be an easy political battle.

“There is almost no middle ground between the solidly pro-choice party, controlling the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate floor, and the solidly pro-life party controlling the nomination itself,” Sabato said.

And, he added, tapping so-called “stealth” candidates — those believed to hold pro-life views but with no public record substantiating that outlook — backfired on Bush's father when he appointed David Souter, who has subsequently sided with the Supreme Court's pro-abortion faction.

Sabato thinks that Bush will continue to nominate judges who are pro-life to the federal courts, including the Supreme Court, when vacancies arise. But Bush will likely give special attention to nominees from minority groups, to minimize the chance of their rejection by the Senate.

“For the Supreme Court he will try to pick someone in a category that is tough to turn down — a Hispanic, a woman, a former senator, and the like,” predicted Sabato. “That way, if he is defeated, the Democrats will have to pay a big price.”

Hardball Politics

But Sabato questioned if Bush was up to the challenge of the tough political battle for a Supreme Court nomination.

“Bush's ride will be very rough — and many of us wonder whether he's up to a game of hardball,” said Sabato. “He's a classic conflict-avoider. But he can't avoid conflict on this critical social issue unless he wants to lose his conservative base and part of the Catholic vote he needs in 2004 to win reelection.”

While the nomination of judges is very important, Cleaver thinks that pro-lifers need to begin thinking about control of the Senate, which will be up for grabs in next year's November elections.

“Rather than putting all eyes on nominations on the short-term,” Cleaver said, “it might be time to start focusing on the Senate elections in 2002.”

Joshua Mercer writes from Washington, D.C.