2008 Woodie Awards
Point/Counterpoint
Get the point: Justice John Roberts
Andrew Madsen and Bill Stewart
Issue date: 9/29/05 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 1
In Katrina's shadow, another newsworthy event took place this past week - the conformation hearings for Supreme Court Chief Justice nominee John Roberts.
If the Senate approves his nomination, Roberts will become the youngest Supreme Court Justice in almost 200 years and will replace his late mentor, Justice William Rehnquist.
Originally, when he was going to replace Moderate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, Roberts faced stiff opposition from Democrats. They were worried the conservative Roberts would swing the court to the right.
Then the death of Rehnquist, one of the most conservative judges the Supreme Court ever had, led President Bush to nominate Roberts for the role of Chief Justice instead of replacing the retiring O'Connor. Does this mean a hardcore conservative is replacing a hardcore conservative?
The comments from Roberts and the short paper trail he's left behind seem to leave only a small window into his political thinking. His background is that of a scholarly genius.
Roberts clerked for Rehnquist before Rehnquist became Chief Justice. During the Regan and George W. Bush administrations, Roberts was the deputy solicitor general of the United States. He argued many cases before the Supreme Court, which is where most of his paper trail stems from.
I find him to be an intellectual pretty boy. He doesn't even look 50. That fact worried me at first because I wondered if he had the gravitas to actually hold one of the most powerful positions in the country for years to come.
Which brings me back to why Democrats are so afraid of Roberts - his smart testimony consisted of telling them he would decide issues such as abortion rights on a case-by-case basis. That tradition goes back to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's hearing, where Democratic members of the 1994 Senate Judiciary Committee accepted a similar answer.
Even more interesting is that some hardcore conservatives are worried that Roberts is not "conservative enough," that he will not overturn abortion because he was in favor of upholding judicial precedent unless there is a basis for it being overturned.
If another abortion case emerges, however, Roberts may decide there is a legitimate reason for overturning the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision and the social conservatives will get their wish.
In the end, Roberts will most likely become Chief Justice, and I'm certain he will excel at his position in one of the government's most powerful and distinguished branches
- Andrew Madsen, opinion writer
Without a doubt, Judge John Roberts is a highly intelligent public servant. However, this is not enough to give him the reigns and complete control of the third branch of government.
Roberts, 50, has already been voted on by the Senate Judiciary Committee with a 13-5 vote approving him for an entire Senate vote.
Many of the fights currently taking place over the nomination process are going just as they were foreseen.
Strong liberal senators have pledged to oppose Roberts while numerous right-wing conservatives have given their support in favor of the judge.
The Democratic Party is starting to splinter when it really needs to focus on what it does best, protecting the rights of minorities. It needs to unify and oppose Roberts as much as possible. A political filibuster is possible if all 45 Democratic senators stick together. However, many semi-moderate liberals are fearing re-election and are stretching out to their constituents by giving an approving vote. Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, has already given Roberts his approval. Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, is still undecided.
The Democrats should threaten to filibuster the nomination until the president nominates another judge to replace Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. This would guarantee a minority would replace a woman leaving the bench and keep the court from leaning too far to one ideological view.
- Bill Stewart, opinion editor
If the Senate approves his nomination, Roberts will become the youngest Supreme Court Justice in almost 200 years and will replace his late mentor, Justice William Rehnquist.
Originally, when he was going to replace Moderate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, Roberts faced stiff opposition from Democrats. They were worried the conservative Roberts would swing the court to the right.
Then the death of Rehnquist, one of the most conservative judges the Supreme Court ever had, led President Bush to nominate Roberts for the role of Chief Justice instead of replacing the retiring O'Connor. Does this mean a hardcore conservative is replacing a hardcore conservative?
The comments from Roberts and the short paper trail he's left behind seem to leave only a small window into his political thinking. His background is that of a scholarly genius.
Roberts clerked for Rehnquist before Rehnquist became Chief Justice. During the Regan and George W. Bush administrations, Roberts was the deputy solicitor general of the United States. He argued many cases before the Supreme Court, which is where most of his paper trail stems from.
I find him to be an intellectual pretty boy. He doesn't even look 50. That fact worried me at first because I wondered if he had the gravitas to actually hold one of the most powerful positions in the country for years to come.
Which brings me back to why Democrats are so afraid of Roberts - his smart testimony consisted of telling them he would decide issues such as abortion rights on a case-by-case basis. That tradition goes back to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's hearing, where Democratic members of the 1994 Senate Judiciary Committee accepted a similar answer.
Even more interesting is that some hardcore conservatives are worried that Roberts is not "conservative enough," that he will not overturn abortion because he was in favor of upholding judicial precedent unless there is a basis for it being overturned.
If another abortion case emerges, however, Roberts may decide there is a legitimate reason for overturning the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision and the social conservatives will get their wish.
In the end, Roberts will most likely become Chief Justice, and I'm certain he will excel at his position in one of the government's most powerful and distinguished branches
- Andrew Madsen, opinion writer
Without a doubt, Judge John Roberts is a highly intelligent public servant. However, this is not enough to give him the reigns and complete control of the third branch of government.
Roberts, 50, has already been voted on by the Senate Judiciary Committee with a 13-5 vote approving him for an entire Senate vote.
Many of the fights currently taking place over the nomination process are going just as they were foreseen.
Strong liberal senators have pledged to oppose Roberts while numerous right-wing conservatives have given their support in favor of the judge.
The Democratic Party is starting to splinter when it really needs to focus on what it does best, protecting the rights of minorities. It needs to unify and oppose Roberts as much as possible. A political filibuster is possible if all 45 Democratic senators stick together. However, many semi-moderate liberals are fearing re-election and are stretching out to their constituents by giving an approving vote. Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, has already given Roberts his approval. Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, is still undecided.
The Democrats should threaten to filibuster the nomination until the president nominates another judge to replace Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. This would guarantee a minority would replace a woman leaving the bench and keep the court from leaning too far to one ideological view.
- Bill Stewart, opinion editor