The death of Chief Justice William Rehnquist, while not totally unexpected, came suddenly and in a way that is sure to occupy the political attention of Washington for months to come.

The nomination of John Roberts to replace Sandra Day O’Connor, who retired, has generated a firestorm of debate. And Roberts was considered a relatively noncontroversial appointment.

The choice of a person to succeed Rehnquist will be doubly difficult, since that person will not simply represent a vote on the Supreme Court; he or she will be asked to lead the court for years to come.
President Bush set a good standard in his nomination of Roberts. While the nominee’s conservative credentials are beyond challenge, he is generally acknowledged to be far from the firebrand ideologue in the mode of Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas.

The president would do well to follow that pattern in his choice of a successor to the late chief justice.

As a model, he might look no farther than Rehnquist himself. Rehnquist was a rock-ribbed conservative, but in the principled style of the late Barry Goldwater, one of his mentors. He had a set of beliefs that led him to political and legal positions but ideology never trumped the law. He also had a sense of court and societal history. For instance, he upheld the so-called Miranda decision, which was a legacy of a far more liberal court.

It’s true that Rehnquist’s view of the law was not that of many Americans.

But even those who disagreed with Rehnquist knew him as a brilliant, modest man who understood the rule of law and the importance of the institution he led.

Bush should honor that legacy when he decides who will become the 17th chief justice.