Political, legal observers brace for the battle.

Byline: Greg Bolt The Register-Guard

Local reaction to Friday's announced retirement of Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor probably could be boiled down to three words: yes and no.

No, people weren't surprised that a member of the court was stepping down. Yes, the fact that it was O'Connor and not Chief Justice William Rehn- quist was a bit unexpected. No, local party officials and court watchers don't expect the first Supreme Court nominee in 11 years to have bipartisan support. Yes, it could be the most acrimonious and divisive judicial battle in modern U.S. history.

"The stakes are real high for both sides, and I don't see anybody pulling their punches on this," said Jack Roberts, head of the Lane Metro Partnership and former Republican candidate for governor. "I see President Bush picking someone who he believes is philosophically aligned with him, and that's going to be someone who I think is going to be of concern to the folks on the other side of the political spectrum, so I see it as a knock-down, drag-out fight. I think it's unavoidable."

That fight won't be confined to the halls of Congress. Given the deep political divide in the country and the emotions generated by many Supreme Court decisions, the battle over who will replace O'Connor could play out nationwide as activists on both sides take their cases to the streets.

"National judicial politics have a great impact at local levels," said Jim Edmunson, a Eugene attorney and chairman of the Oregon Democratic Party. "This could be the most important civil rights issue in a decade, and a volatile nominee could cause an eruption of protests in communities all over America. I hope that doesn't happen; it would be bad for this country. But it may be necessary if President Bush sticks to his extremist views."

For now, most people are waiting until Bush sends a nominee to the Senate. That gives anyone who cares plenty of time to hash out possible scenarios and wonder how, it at all, the long-awaited turnover on the high court might affect everyday life in America.

O'Connor is seen by many as a swing vote who sided with more liberal justices on some crucial issues, including abortion rights and affirmative action. But she also sided with conservatives on cases ranging from school vouchers to the Florida recount in the 2000 presidential election.

Lane County Commissioner Peter Sorenson, a Democratic candidate for governor as well as an attorney and former law professor, said that in recent years some have described O'Connor as the most powerful person in America because of her role in so many close Supreme Court decisions.

"She has been the most powerful person in the U.S. government for 12 years because she has been on the winning side of more 5-4 decisions than any other justice in history," he said.

But Jay Bozievich, a vice chairman of the Lane County Republican Party, downplayed O'Connor's role in modern legal history and said he sees little change stemming from her retirement. Bozievich said the court remains dominated by those who view the Constitution as a "living document" open to interpretation, and he doubts that will change with one retirement.

"I don't see O'Connor as much of a swing vote as maybe the press is playing her to be," he said. "I don't see this as something where anyone the Bush administration nominates changes the complexion of the court very greatly."

That includes one of the nation's most divisive issues: abortion. Although O'Connor was seen as a key vote on several decisions upholding Roe vs. Wade and striking down laws intended to limit abortions, some don't see her departure as changing the court's stance.

`The reality is that in the last vote (on abortion) in 1992, there were six justices that spoke openly of upholding Roe,' said Gail Atteberry, executive director of Oregon Right to Life. "So even if O'Connor is replaced by a judge who would somehow be aligned with the other three, that would still be 5-4."

Diane Duke, senior vice president for Eugene-based Planned Parenthood of Southwestern Oregon, called O'Connor a moderate and a voice of reason on the current court, and said her departure "definitely raises some concern." But she doesn't expect the debate over a replacement to cause any upset at clinics in Eugene and elsewhere, and said she's hoping the nomination is handled civilly.

"We're concerned about the health and safety of women, and the possibility of Roe being overturned is certainly a threat to that," Duke said. "We're just hoping to have a good process for this and that it's not something that's just rushed through and that it's done in a thoughtful and deliberate manner."

Atteberry called all the hubbub over the retirement "contrived hysteria" intended to scare people away from judges seen as conservative and to rally liberal opposition in the Senate.

And clearly Democrats are girding for what they say could be the political battle of the era.

Attorney Edmunson said that with midterm elections looming, Bush may face resistance from Republican senators in states where abortion rights enjoy strong support. But pressure from conservative lawmakers could still lead to a nomination that sparks another firefight in Congress and elsewhere.

"If this appointment is about Roe vs. Wade, then all partisan bets are off and you can bet that every senator is going to vote his or her conscience with a very close eye on their constituency," Edmunson said.

"I would imagine that an anti-choice judicial nominee could spark protests even greater than against the war in Iraq. This is probably the most emotional domestic issue we have, and President Bush has indicated that he's going to take it on. And we're prepared for that."