John Roberts
John Roberts
Exercising perhaps the most influential of his powers, President Bush has nominated D.C. Appeals Court Justice John Roberts to replace William Rehnquist as the Chief Justice of the United States. Considering the age of John Roberts, 50 years, it is important to note that if confirmed as the Chief Justice, Judge Roberts will hold the position until his death or retirement – possibly over 30 years away. This nomination is one of the most important in history, likely to effect the political and legal climate of the United States for decades to come.
To understand the qualifications of John Roberts for the position, and the magnitude, high or low, of change this nomination will bring, it is important to examine William Rehnquist’s positions and legacy. Originally nominated to the position of Associate Justice by President Nixon in 1972, Rehnquist served in that capacity until 1986, when he replaced Warren Burger as the Chief Justice.
Considered to have been a conservative justice, Rehnquist importantly ruled as an Associate Justice against the expansion of desegregation as well as the legalization of abortion in Roe v. Wade, the controlling ruling for abortion law in the country. Additionally, his ruling in the United States v. Lopez case furthered state’s rights, limiting the congressional ability to regulate commerce. The issue in this particular case was that the Commerce Clause had jurisdiction over the possession of firearms in a public school, with a justification that such possession would lead to violent crime and therefore affect the local economy. The Supreme Court’s ruling held that there was no significant connection between possession and commerce, and so Congress’ regulation of the possession of firearms in a school overreached the powers vested in it by the Constitution. Finally, his ruling in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris allowed the federal government to provide aid to private religious schools.
It is apparent, looking back, that William Rehnquist was a steadfast conservative. Considering his rulings, it can be said that he allowed the line of separation between Church and State to be blurred, that he allowed for the sluggish growth of racial equality, and that his interpretation of the Constitution was literal and limiting to the federal government. His dissenting opinion in Roe v. Wade also marks him as a conservative justice.
With that in mind, it is unexpected that John Roberts will continue moving the Supreme Court in the direction that Rehnquist had been taking it. Surely, his conservative opinions will become more and more evident, but it is likely that his minimalist approach so far in his career will allow the court to continue moving to the right, without finding itself in the extreme.
After graduating from the Harvard school of law in 1979, Roberts began his history as a public servant. He began as a clerk for Henry Friendly, moving on to William Rehnquist approximately one year later. After entering private law in 1986, he again worked for the government under the first President Bush, serving as Deputy Solicitor General, a position in which he argued that Microsoft had abused its position as a monopoly by including Internet Explorer with Microsoft Windows. The second President Bush eventually ceased pursuing the dissolution of Microsoft into two parts, but it can be said that Robert’s argument against the monolithic Microsoft shows his support for law over corporation.
After holding his position as Deputy Solicitor General, he was nominated in 1992 to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, but was not confirmed or even voted upon, as the former Bush left office soon after the nomination. In the period between 1992 and 2001, Roberts again entered the private arena, working for the Hogan & Hartson law firm, although still playing an important role in the hotly debated 2000 election. He is known to have met with Florida Governor Jeb Bush, allegedly to insure the current President Bush’s legal victory and ascension to the Oval Office. This allegation is unproven, although it supports an idea that Robert’s favor in the Bush administration is a reward entirely. President Bush first nominated John Roberts to be a justice on the DC Circuit Court of appeals in 2001; the nomination failed. However, a second nomination in 2003 was a success, with a vote of 16-3 in Roberts’ favor.
Considering that President Bush easily could have selected a more conservative nominee for the position, it could be expected that Robert’s confirmation will be relatively painless compared to some of Bush’s previous judicial appointments. Roberts has attempted to make clear that he feels obligated not to overturn the precedent created by Roe v. Wade, and that his personal opinions give him no reason to do so. However, as abortion has been one of the most important and encompassing political debates in a long time, this is being taken skeptically by the primarily Democratic opposition, especially considering that he would indeed have the right to limit the ruling where it is applied, if confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice. While this skepticism is likely to hold up the confirmation hearings, the official position Roberts has taken of respecting precedent may also undermine his support among the right side of the aisle; forcing abortion to become illegal in most or all circumstances is a major goal of many conservatives, and an opinion may be taken that President Bush has betrayed his support base by nominating a judge unwilling to overturn Roe v. Wade. Concerning the Separation of Church and State, Roberts has been quoted as saying that “. . . history shows that religious acknowledgments were part of the ceremonies of all three branches of government when the Republic was founded . . . nothing in the text of the Establishment Clause or in the concerns leading to its adoption suggests that a ceremonial acknowledgment of religion is a ‘law respecting an establishment of religion.’” His opinions on the matter are visibly conservative, similar to the President’s.
Robert’s opinion on most issues is not well known, due to his relatively small two years of experience as a judge. As the majority of John Roberts’ career was as a lawyer, it was his responsibility to argue in favor of his client, and so his arguments as a lawyer may or may not be connected to his personal beliefs. And so questions pertaining to his political beliefs are likely to be common and important in the confirmation process.
Whether or not he should or will answer those questions is another matter entirely. All questions asked should be asked to discern his likeliness to check the Constitutional validity of legislation, rather than legislate from the bench as an “activist judge.” Questions concerning his personal political views are to be expected – the issue is whether or not his answers should or will prevent him from being confirmed due to partisan politics. In politics, it could be said that questions are not as important as the answers that follow them. Judge Roberts should answer all questions he feels comfortable with, but focus those answers on jurisprudence, not religion or morality.
An appointment to the Supreme Court carries with it a life tenure; Roberts’ presence as Chief Justice would give him, a comparatively young and untried man, the most powerful judicial voice in the entire country. The ways in which his opinions will develop and affect the nation cannot be known, but he has proclaimed that “Judges have to have the humility to recognize that they operate in a system that precedent shaped by other judges equally striving to live up to the judicial oath . . . I have no platform.” If that is a reflection of the future of a Supreme Court headed by John Roberts, then perhaps the Judicial Branch under John Roberts will fulfill its purpose as the Founding Fathers intended.
Exercising perhaps the most influential of his powers, President Bush has nominated D.C. Appeals Court Justice John Roberts to replace William Rehnquist as the Chief Justice of the United States. Considering the age of John Roberts, 50 years, it is important to note that if confirmed as the Chief Justice, Judge Roberts will hold the position until his death or retirement – possibly over 30 years away. This nomination is one of the most important in history, likely to effect the political and legal climate of the United States for decades to come.
To understand the qualifications of John Roberts for the position, and the magnitude, high or low, of change this nomination will bring, it is important to examine William Rehnquist’s positions and legacy. Originally nominated to the position of Associate Justice by President Nixon in 1972, Rehnquist served in that capacity until 1986, when he replaced Warren Burger as the Chief Justice.
Considered to have been a conservative justice, Rehnquist importantly ruled as an Associate Justice against the expansion of desegregation as well as the legalization of abortion in Roe v. Wade, the controlling ruling for abortion law in the country. Additionally, his ruling in the United States v. Lopez case furthered state’s rights, limiting the congressional ability to regulate commerce. The issue in this particular case was that the Commerce Clause had jurisdiction over the possession of firearms in a public school, with a justification that such possession would lead to violent crime and therefore affect the local economy. The Supreme Court’s ruling held that there was no significant connection between possession and commerce, and so Congress’ regulation of the possession of firearms in a school overreached the powers vested in it by the Constitution. Finally, his ruling in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris allowed the federal government to provide aid to private religious schools.
It is apparent, looking back, that William Rehnquist was a steadfast conservative. Considering his rulings, it can be said that he allowed the line of separation between Church and State to be blurred, that he allowed for the sluggish growth of racial equality, and that his interpretation of the Constitution was literal and limiting to the federal government. His dissenting opinion in Roe v. Wade also marks him as a conservative justice.
With that in mind, it is unexpected that John Roberts will continue moving the Supreme Court in the direction that Rehnquist had been taking it. Surely, his conservative opinions will become more and more evident, but it is likely that his minimalist approach so far in his career will allow the court to continue moving to the right, without finding itself in the extreme.
After graduating from the Harvard school of law in 1979, Roberts began his history as a public servant. He began as a clerk for Henry Friendly, moving on to William Rehnquist approximately one year later. After entering private law in 1986, he again worked for the government under the first President Bush, serving as Deputy Solicitor General, a position in which he argued that Microsoft had abused its position as a monopoly by including Internet Explorer with Microsoft Windows. The second President Bush eventually ceased pursuing the dissolution of Microsoft into two parts, but it can be said that Robert’s argument against the monolithic Microsoft shows his support for law over corporation.
After holding his position as Deputy Solicitor General, he was nominated in 1992 to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, but was not confirmed or even voted upon, as the former Bush left office soon after the nomination. In the period between 1992 and 2001, Roberts again entered the private arena, working for the Hogan & Hartson law firm, although still playing an important role in the hotly debated 2000 election. He is known to have met with Florida Governor Jeb Bush, allegedly to insure the current President Bush’s legal victory and ascension to the Oval Office. This allegation is unproven, although it supports an idea that Robert’s favor in the Bush administration is a reward entirely. President Bush first nominated John Roberts to be a justice on the DC Circuit Court of appeals in 2001; the nomination failed. However, a second nomination in 2003 was a success, with a vote of 16-3 in Roberts’ favor.
Considering that President Bush easily could have selected a more conservative nominee for the position, it could be expected that Robert’s confirmation will be relatively painless compared to some of Bush’s previous judicial appointments. Roberts has attempted to make clear that he feels obligated not to overturn the precedent created by Roe v. Wade, and that his personal opinions give him no reason to do so. However, as abortion has been one of the most important and encompassing political debates in a long time, this is being taken skeptically by the primarily Democratic opposition, especially considering that he would indeed have the right to limit the ruling where it is applied, if confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice. While this skepticism is likely to hold up the confirmation hearings, the official position Roberts has taken of respecting precedent may also undermine his support among the right side of the aisle; forcing abortion to become illegal in most or all circumstances is a major goal of many conservatives, and an opinion may be taken that President Bush has betrayed his support base by nominating a judge unwilling to overturn Roe v. Wade. Concerning the Separation of Church and State, Roberts has been quoted as saying that “. . . history shows that religious acknowledgments were part of the ceremonies of all three branches of government when the Republic was founded . . . nothing in the text of the Establishment Clause or in the concerns leading to its adoption suggests that a ceremonial acknowledgment of religion is a ‘law respecting an establishment of religion.’” His opinions on the matter are visibly conservative, similar to the President’s.
Robert’s opinion on most issues is not well known, due to his relatively small two years of experience as a judge. As the majority of John Roberts’ career was as a lawyer, it was his responsibility to argue in favor of his client, and so his arguments as a lawyer may or may not be connected to his personal beliefs. And so questions pertaining to his political beliefs are likely to be common and important in the confirmation process.
Whether or not he should or will answer those questions is another matter entirely. All questions asked should be asked to discern his likeliness to check the Constitutional validity of legislation, rather than legislate from the bench as an “activist judge.” Questions concerning his personal political views are to be expected – the issue is whether or not his answers should or will prevent him from being confirmed due to partisan politics. In politics, it could be said that questions are not as important as the answers that follow them. Judge Roberts should answer all questions he feels comfortable with, but focus those answers on jurisprudence, not religion or morality.
An appointment to the Supreme Court carries with it a life tenure; Roberts’ presence as Chief Justice would give him, a comparatively young and untried man, the most powerful judicial voice in the entire country. The ways in which his opinions will develop and affect the nation cannot be known, but he has proclaimed that “Judges have to have the humility to recognize that they operate in a system that precedent shaped by other judges equally striving to live up to the judicial oath . . . I have no platform.” If that is a reflection of the future of a Supreme Court headed by John Roberts, then perhaps the Judicial Branch under John Roberts will fulfill its purpose as the Founding Fathers intended.
posted by GasperMatters at 8:35 PM
2 comments
