(CNSNews.com) - With many people expecting a pitched battle in the Senate over President Bush's nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court, one of the Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee is arguing for a nominee who would receive unanimous support.

Despite the many recent battles between President Bush and Senate Democrats over the president's nominations to lower federal court positions, Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.) prefers to look back at the confirmation vote of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in 1981.

O'Connor, whose retirement has caused the current vacancy on the court, was approved by the Senate by a 99-0 vote. Biden has established a website that asks concerned citizens to "please join me in encouraging President Bush to select a Supreme Court nominee who, like Justice [Sandra Day] O'Connor, will receive unanimous support in the Senate."

Carl Tobias, a professor at the University of Richmond's School of Law, told Cybercast News Service that he agrees with Biden's sentiment: "Well, it's a nice goal ... but it may be more difficult now, just given all the circumstances.

"The process is more divisive than it used to be on both sides of the aisle," Tobias said. "I think both Republicans and Democrats deserve a lot of the credit -- or blame -- for the deterioration of the process."

The presence of special interest groups, both liberal and conservative, who may be "concerned about one issue or a small number of issues and willing to spend a lot of money," also complicates the process, Tobias said.

"All of those factors were certainly less prevalent at the time, in 1981 when O'Connor was nominated, so there are a lot of different explanations, but I do think it is a more contentious process than it used to be," he explained.

Wendy E. Long, spokeswoman for the Judicial Confirmation Network, offered an even bleaker view of the possibility that President Bush's nominee would receive unanimous support in the Senate. "I think it is perfectly impossible, and it's not going to happen under any circumstances," she told Cybercast News Service.

"It will not happen again, and here's the reason: when a Democratic president nominates a justice consistent with his judicial philosophy, such as (Bill) Clinton and (Justice Ruth Bader) Ginsburg, Republicans correctly understand that it is the president's prerogative to select justices in the Supreme Court," Long said.

"The problem is the Democrats do not equally believe in the Constitution ... and therefore, when a Republican president, such as President Bush, chooses someone consistent with his judicial philosophy, Democrats are not willing to give him the same respect and observe the Constitution in the same way Republicans are willing to do," she added.

Andrew C. McCarthy from the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies -- and a former federal prosecutor -- told Cybercast News Service that what Biden wants is neither possible nor desirable.

"There is an important debate going on in the country about the proper role of the courts in our democratic system. ... We shouldn't shrink from having that debate. It's healthy. That's how issues get developed, people get engaged in the things that matter, arguments get sharp, and intelligent choices get more likely," McCarthy said.

"The absence of a real consensus, or indeed unanimous, candidate on the horizon is not because of a lack of excellent judges," McCarthy added. "It's because there is no consensus on this core issue over how the Constitution should be interpreted -- whether as its provisions were originally understood or as an 'organic' document that changes with the times.

"I personally favor the former, but even if I was in the other camp, I would think the debate an important one to have. Looking for a consensus candidate is a way of avoiding this debate. I personally don't believe it should be avoided," McCarthy concluded.

Tobias said he believes it would be "valuable, if it's possible," for a nominee to receive overwhelming support in the Senate. This, he said, would help to depoliticize the process.

"Some people are worried about the court's credibility because members of the Supreme Court are not elected and [are] appointed for life," he stated. "The court really does count on the public's belief that it's not completely a political institution."

Long questioned whether Biden was sincere in calling on President Bush to nominate someone who would receive unanimous support.

"His motives are to try to set the stage to discredit the potential nominees of this president and make them appear, quote-unquote, 'outside the main stream,' by virtue of the fact they lack unanimous support of the Senate," Long said. "Of course that's false, but that's exactly what they're attempting to do."

Biden's actions, in the end, are limited by the Constitution, according to Tobias.

The language of the Constitution "contemplates that the president nominate and appoint with the advice and consent of the Senate. If the president so chooses, he could certainly ask advice and even solicit names, but ... it's his prerogative," Tobias said. "It only takes a majority" to confirm a Supreme Court Justice.

Neither Biden nor his spokesman could be reached for comment for this article.

E-mail a news tip to Alexa Moutevelis.

Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.