The View From Here . . .

The nomination of Judge Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court will likely prove very contentious and presents both Democrats and Republicans with the potential for difficult political decisions.

It is hard to claim that Mr. Alito lacks the qualifications for the Supreme Court. A graduate of Princeton University and Yale Law School, the judge has served for 15 years on the federal appeals court bench following five years as a lawyer for the federal government. The American Bar Association, which reviewed his qualifications, called him "well qualified", its highest rating.

One does suspect that Judge Alito will be a quite conservative judge, however, and this is inflaming liberal activists and encouraging conservative ones. The passion is especially strong since Mr. Alito would replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, one of the centrist swing votes on the Court. While his comments as an applicant to the Reagan Justice Department may or may not represent his precise judicial philosophy, one suspects that they are instructive. Moreover, Judge Alioto's tenure on the Third Circuit court of appeals indicates a reliably, although not stridently, conservative approach to judging.

The biggest political question is whether Senate Democrats, who almost certainly would lose a straight up or down vote on the nominee, will attempt to mount a filibuster to block the nomination. It would take 60 votes to end a filibuster against the nominee, with the Republicans only holding 55 seats. If this happens Republicans have threatened to use what has been described as the "nuclear" or "constitutional" option - a vote by a majority of the Senate (just 51 senators) to end filibusters of judicial nominations permanently. It is likely, but not certain, that these anti-filibuster rule votes are available.

Support of a filibuster is problematic for a number of Democrats from red states. The most obviously conflicted senator is Ben Nelson of Nebraska, a state that voted overwhelmingly for Mr. Bush in both 2000 and 2004 and who is up for election this year. Mr. Nelson, although favored in his bid for reelection, has found it prudent to say good preliminary words about the nominee and seems an unlikely pro-filibuster vote. In addition, other Democrats in heavily Republican states may think that blocking a conservative nominee to the high court without a vote carries too high a political price.

Another complicating factor for the Democrats is that there is no particular groundswell of opposition, at least yet, to Judge Alioto in the country, even among rank and file Democrats and liberals. According to a Washington Post/ ABC News poll taken this week before the hearings, Democrats favored the nomination by 40-39%, while even self-described liberals were only tepidly opposed, with 38% in favor and 44% opposed. It would likely take a major development at the hearings for more fervent opposition to develop. Democrats attempting to block the nomination are currently in danger of being viewed as well outside the mainstream.

There are potential problems for Republicans, however. If they end filibusters of nominations, they will have to head off claims that they have engaged in one more arbitrary power grab, which critics will contend is consistent with such actions as secret wiretapping and treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo. Moreover, if Republicans end the filibuster of nominees, they may regret it when they next lose control of the Senate during a Democratic presidency.

The most likely outcome seems to be confirmation of Judge Alioto without a filibuster. But if opponents indicate a willingness to raise the stakes, many senators will be faced with some tough choices.