With two positions now open on the Supreme Court and Senate Judiciary Committee nomination hearings scheduled to begin Monday, ISU professors speculate future justices could shift the U.S. Supreme Court’s ideological makeup.

The death of Chief Justice William Rehnquist on Saturday and the resignation of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor in early July has left President George W. Bush in a position to replace two Supreme Court justices.

A former clerk to Rehnquist, Judge John Roberts was initially nominated by the president to fill O’Connor’s position. After Rehnquist’s death, Roberts was elevated to the primary chief justice nominee.

“Roberts, in a way, does fit the philosophy of Chief Justice Rehnquist,” political science professor Steffen Schmidt said.

If nominated, Roberts wouldn’t change the balance of the court, because he is a disciple of Rehnquist and views himself in the likeness of Rehnquist, Schmidt said.

The way a chief justice operates, however, can affect the Supreme Court’s decision-making.

“The chief justice is kind of like a conductor of an orchestra. He can make the court’s agenda move one way or another but he does not dominate the Court. The position makes some difference on the pace of the Court,” Schmidt said.

Behavior not aligned with the nominating president’s expectations is another way political shifts occur in the court.

Political science lecturer Dirk Deam teaches a course in Constitutional law and said division within the court has risen because of a tone set by Associate Justice Antonin Scalia’s activism and ridicule for fellow justices, a tone that could be bettered by Roberts’ attitude.

“People need to understand that conservatism on the court is different than ideological conservatism,” he said. “Judicial conservatism means that you’re very cautious about changing the Constitution, Constitutional law and interpretation. Ideological conservatism deals with what issues are important at the time. I don’t know to what extent [Roberts is] going to allow his ideological interests influence his judicial decisions.”

Bush’s move to elevate Roberts from a nominee for associate justice to chief justice was not surprising, Deam said.

“I’ve heard speculation that Bush wanted Roberts as chief justice in the first place because he was expecting Rehnquist to retire before O’Connor, and the move over the weekend simply allows him to do that now,” he said.

Before Roberts and future nominees are approved, each must sit before a Senate Judiciary Committee.

According to CNN.com, nominees appear before the committee to answer questions. Senators often press nominees for their personal and legal views on a range of hot-button issues like abortion and affirmative action.

Ten affirming votes, one of which must be cast by the minority, is needed for the nomination to pass to the floor of the Senate, according to the rules of procedure for the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary.

Debate in the form of filibuster could delay the process.

In the past, if a party tries to filibuster to stop the vote, that option has usually been respected and accepted, Schmidt said. There is a rule in the Senate nicknamed the nuclear option, however, that overrides a filibuster. Its name was chosen because it has never been used before.

“Republicans in the Senate Judiciary Committee could override the filibuster, which is legal, and could vote out the nominee to the floor of the Senate. If there are two real conservative nominees, the Democrats might choose to filibuster,” Schmidt said.

Schmidt and Deam agreed it is difficult to speculate on any candidate who will replace O’Connor now.

Schmidt said Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is a possible candidate because he is more moderate and the Bush administration would also like to have a woman or minority in a justice position.

Deam said Bush may have miscalculated when nominating Roberts to chief justice.

Since Roberts was scheduled to face the committee this week, Bush may have thought Roberts would pass more easily next week, but the delay could prove to go against the president’s plan, as some Democrats still want information about Roberts, he said.

“You can look down the line at his past decisions and opinions, but because he’s so young, we don’t have a lot on the record of judicial temperament,” Deam said.

“There’s no urgency to fill those positions other than the urgency from the president and Congress. The foreseen principle is entirely political, not judicial.”