Nomination Could Be Defining Moment for Bush

But conservatives argue, and key White House officials agree, that the public sees the courts as out of touch with their values. They believe that voters want the courts to act as impartial referees in the political battles between the major parties. Conservatives believe a majority of Americans see the courts dominated by judges who are legislating on issues such as gay rights and abortion. They argue that the high court's rulings run wildly counter to public opinion.

The shockwaves of O'Connor's announcement began to reverberate immediately as word began to circulate yesterday morning that it was the court's most celebrated swing justice, and not the ailing chief justice, William H. Rehnquist, who is stepping down.

Combatants on both sides had widely anticipated a Rehnquist retirement and were gearing up for a confirmation fight over his successor. But there was something ritualistic about the preparations for that battle, since the departure of Rehnquist, one of the staunchest conservatives among the nine justices, would offer no real chance to move the court to the right.

The departure of O'Connor changed all that, bringing conservatives to a moment they have long dreamed about and liberals to a moment they have long feared. No one was exaggerating yesterday when they talked about the potential consequences involved in the choice of an O'Connor successor.

"This totally raises the stakes," said Democratic pollster Geoffrey Garin. He added: "Obviously we've had battles over particular nominees, but this is a battle about the court itself rather than any one seat. As a result, so much more hangs in the balance. There's no question that all sides will see this as a very high-stakes, high-consequence battle."

It is possible that predictions of a pitched battle in the Senate this summer may prove exaggerated. "I understand both sides are well armed and ready for war and everyone's got their battle plans drawn," said Ron Klain, who was chief of staff to then-Vice President Al Gore. "But it ultimately does come down to whom he selects. If he does what Ronald Reagan did and veers off and picks someone more from the center, then we might not have a fight. If not, we're much more likely to have a fight."

That could mean the choice of someone such as Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, a personal favorite of the president, who is seen as less rigidly conservative than some others on lists of possible nominees.

But among conservatives still angry about the choice by Bush's father of Justice David H. Souter, who has voted regularly with the court's liberals, Gonzales is seen as insufficiently opposed to abortion, and his nomination would be viewed by them as a betrayal. "There are many pro-family groups who are opposed to his being nominated," said Jan LaRue, chief counsel of Concerned Women for America.

Depending on the outcome of the upcoming battle, the courts could become central issues in next year's midterm elections and in the next presidential campaign. After the uproar over the confirmation of Justice Clarence Thomas came what was called the "Year of the Woman," in 1992, when Democrats elected a number of women to the Senate. After the high court's 1989 abortion decision in the Webster case from Missouri, abortion became a mobilizing issue on both the right and the left.

In the larger context, conservatives see the upcoming battle as a chance to recoup from the failure to confirm Robert H. Bork to the Supreme Court during the Reagan administration, which they regard as a major setback for their movement. In Bush they have the most conservative president since Reagan and one who, as his advisers say, likes to swing for the fences. Which is why his next move is awaited by all sides with such great expectation.