|
John Roberts on Principles & Values
Supreme Court Justice (nominated by Pres. George W. Bush 2005)
|
|
|
1990s: Argued dozens of cases before Supreme Court
I knew John Roberts' record: top of his class at Harvard and Harvard Law School. Law clerk to Justice Rehnquist, dozens of cases argued before the Supreme Court. Roberts had been nominated to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in
1992, but he wasn't confirmed before the election. I had nominated him to a seat on the same court in 2001. He was confirmed in 2003 and had established a solid record. Behind the sparkling resume was a genuine man with a gentle soul.
He had a quick smile and spoke with a passion about the two young children he and his wife, Jane, had adopted. His command of the law was obvious, as was his character.I believed Roberts would be a natural leader. I didn't worry about him drifting
away from his principles over time. He described his philosophy of judicial modesty with a baseball analogy that stuck with me: "A good judge is like an umpire--and no umpire thinks he is the most important person on the field."
Source: Decision Points, by Pres. George W. Bush, p. 98
, Nov 9, 2010
Strongly supported by religious conservatives
By the time of Bush's election in 2000, religious conservatives were fully integrated into the party structure. They became precinct chairmen and county chairmen and dominated the apparatus of the party in states across the country. Their influence
within the party reached a high point during Bush's presidency, symbolized by Bush's assiduous courtship of them and by the confirmation of two Supreme Court justices in 2005, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, whom they strongly
supported.Another moment that spring illustrated the power of the religious right, but in a way that would cost the Republicans. Congress passed legislation ordering federal courts to intervene in the case of Terri Schiavo, a brain-damaged woman,
after state courts had authorized doctors to remove her feeding tube. If the Roberts and Alito nominations showed the long-lasting influence of the religious right on the country's politics, the Schiavo episode showed the dangers of overreaching.
Source: The Battle for America 2008, by Balz & Johnson, p.231-232
, Aug 4, 2009
Opponents will fight only to hear Roberts’ issue stances
Democrats and liberal advocacy groups are scrambling to see if they can, and should, build a case against Roberts’ nomination to the Supreme Court. [They are] struggling to deal with a nominee whose two years as a federal appeals court judge has produced
only a scant record that could be used to measure what kind of justice he might be. No Democratic senator has stepped forward to oppose Roberts outright. But advocacy groups said they would press to question Roberts aggressively in confirmation
hearings to fill in the information gaps.
Democrats said they would scrutinize Roberts’s record as a private lawyer for evidence of conflicts or ties to big business. And leading Democratic senators, well aware of a tense history between Democrats and
this White House on the release of documents, said they would call on Roberts to release documents he wrote while working in the Solicitor General’s Office, and in the Attorney General’s Office under President Ronald Reagan, to try to divine his views.
Source: Adam Nagourney & Carl Hulse, International Herald-Tribune
, Jul 22, 2005
Volunteer adviser to Bush in 2000 Florida post-election
Seeking to gauge Roberts’ conservatism, Democrats and outside groups also have begun raising questions about his activities, including assistance he gave the Bush legal team in Florida after the 2000 election. A spokesman for Gov. Jeb Bush said
Roberts came to Florida at his own expense and met with Bush to discuss the governor’s responsibilities under federal law in a disputed presidential election. The spokesman said, “the governor appreciated his willingness to serve and valued his counsel.”
Source: Jan Crawford Greenburg, Chicago Tribune
, Jul 21, 2005
Adopted two children
Jane Roberts, the wife of John Roberts, was a volunteer member of Feminists for Life’s board of directors from 1995 to 1999. She has provided legal assistance to the pro-life group and been recognized as a contributor who donated from $1,000 to $2,500.
She has written for a newsletter for a pro-life group called ‘s newsletter, including an article about adoption. Roberts and her husband have adopted two children.
Source: Richard A. Serrano, Los Angeles Times
, Jul 21, 2005
Public service history precludes “stealth candidate” label
Roberts has lived a relatively public work life, serving as a clerk to Chief Justice William Rehnquist, as an attorney in the office of the U.S. Solicitor General under the first President Bush and as a lawyer at a blue-chip Washington law firm.
After serving just two years on the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, Roberts’ record as a judge reveals little. It is a reality that will make some people nervous, but it could very well ease his path in the Senate,
where confirmation hearings will take place after Labor Day.
Critics wonder whether Bush had nominated “a stealth candidate.” But how stealthy can he be with the entire conservative establishment on their feet cheering his appointment?
Advocates on both sides of the partisan divide will go to school on Roberts over the coming weeks and months, and his “stealth” will be tested in hearings this fall.
Source: Denver Post, “Roberts file”
, Jul 21, 2005
An establishment lawyer, with no all-encompassing philosophy
As a judge interpreting the Constitution, he said, “I don’t necessarily think that it’s the best approach to have an all-encompassing philosophy.’’ Roberts indicated at the hearing discomfort with Scalia’s view that judges must rely solely on the intent
of the authors of the Constitution, and the wording of laws, to determine their meaning. ”I believe this guy is a basically quite conservative fellow,’’ said a law professor. “He generally will favor government over individual rights, and he will
generally be sympathetic to states’ rights over national power. The president wanted to appoint someone markedly to the right of retiring Justice O’Connor in respect to these issues, and he did.’’
“He’s not coming to the court with a
broad ideology or unified theory of constitutional law,’’ said a former Justice Department official. ”He’s a Washington establishment lawyer, not a revolutionary.’’
Source: Bob Egelko, San Francisco Chronicle
, Jul 21, 2005
Reliable conservative and perfect judicial temperament
Those who know Roberts say he is a reliable conservative who can be counted on to undermine if not immediately overturn liberal landmarks like abortion rights and affirmative action. Indicators of his true stripes cited by friends include: -
clerking for Rehnquist
- membership in the Federalist Society
- laboring in the Ronald Reagan White House counsel’s office
- and working with Kenneth Starr.
“He is as conservative as you can get,” one friend puts it. In short, Roberts may combine
the stealth appeal of Souter with the unwavering ideology of Scalia and Thomas. But this take on Roberts puts some of his biggest boosters in a quandary. They praise Roberts as a brilliant, fair-minded lawyer with a perfect judicial temperament. But can
that image as an open-minded jurist co-exist with also being viewed as a predictable conservative? “He respects the Court greatly, and would not ignore precedent,” says a colleague. “But if there’s a loophole or a distinguishing factor, he’d find it.”
Source: Tony Mauro, Legal Times
, Feb 22, 2005
Positions a lawyer presents don’t have to be his own beliefs
Q: What is a lawyer’s obligation, as you understand it, under the Code of Legal Responsibility?A: I think the standard phase is “zealous advocacy” on behalf of a client. You don’t make any conceivable argument. The argument has to have a reasonable
basis in law, but it certainly doesn’t have to be a winner. I’ve lost enough cases that I would hate to be held to that standard. But if it’s an argument that has a reasonable basis in the law, including arguments concerning the extension of precedent
and the reversal of precedent-the lawyer is ethically bound to present that argument on behalf of the client. And there is a longstanding tradition in our country, dating back to one of the more famous episodes, of course, being John Adams’
representation of the British soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre, that the positions a lawyer presents on behalf of a client should not be ascribed to that lawyer as his personal beliefs or his personal positions.
Source: 2003 SCOTUS hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee
, Jan 29, 2003
There are certain areas where literalism doesn’t work
Q: You have told NPR you support an originalist approach to constitutional interpretation, saying the reason that that is the way it was in 1789 is not a bad one when you are talking about construing the Constitution. Of course, the Constitution in 1789
did not have the Bill of Rights. It allowed African-Americans to be enslaved back then. So the originalist concept can’t be an exact one, can it?A: I don’t have an overarching, uniform philosophy. To take a very simple example to make the point,
I think we’re all literal textualists when it comes to a provision of the Constitution that says it takes a two-thirds vote to do something. You don’t look at what was the intent behind that, and, you know, given that intent, one-half ought to be enough.
On the other hand, there are certain areas where literalism along those lines obviously doesn’t work. If you are dealing with the Fourth Amendment, is something an unreasonable search and seizure, the text is only going to get you so far.
Source: 2003 SCOTUS hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee
, Jan 29, 2003
There is a right answer in every court case
I do think there is a right answer in a case, and if judges do the work and work hard at it, they’re likely to come up with the right answer. I think that’s why, for example, in the DC Circuit, 97% of the panel decisions are unanimous, because they
are hard-working judges and they come up with the same answer in a vast majority of the cases. There are certainly going to be disagreements. That’s why we have Courts of Appeals, because we think district courts are not always going to get it right.
Source: 2003 SCOTUS hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee
, Jan 29, 2003
States cannot sue each other over eased voting rules.
Justice Roberts wrote the concurrence on Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton: "TX v. PA, GA, MI & WI" on Dec 11, 2020:
Summary of lawsuit, Dec. 7:: The 2020 election suffered from significant and unconstitutional irregularities including:
- Michigan's Secretary of State, without legislative approval, unilaterally abrogated [under the pandemic emergency] several statutes requiring signature verification for absentee ballot applications. [Similar in GA, PA, & WI].
- Pennsylvania's election law requires that poll-watchers be granted access to the opening, counting, and recording of absentee ballots: Local election officials [in 2 counties] decided not to follow this law.
- Georgia state law prohibits the opening of absentee ballots until after the polls open on Election Day: In April 2020, without legislative approval, [a new rule] authorized processing absentee ballots three weeks before Election Day.
- The Wisconsin Elections Commission positioned hundreds of drop boxes to collect absentee ballots--including the use of unmanned drop boxes, in contravention of Wisconsin law.
Supreme Court Order, Dec. 11: The State of Texas's motion is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.
Texas Tribune analysis, Dec. 11:: Trump--and Republicans across the country--had pinned their hopes on the Texas suit. In a series of tweets, Trump called it "the big one" and later added, "it is very strong, ALL CRITERIA MET." If the court had heard the case, Sen. Ted Cruz said he would have argued it, at the request of Trump.
Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas indicated they would have allowed Texas to bring the case but said they would "not grant other relief." In a series of tweets after the ruling, Trump raged against the decision, which he called "a disgraceful miscarriage of justice."
Source: Supreme Court case 20-SCOTUS argued on Dec 7, 2020
Page last updated: Mar 21, 2022