Posted on 07/20/2005 10:26:54 AM PDT by Congressman Billybob
Thousands of writers will produce millions of words about President Bush’s nomination of Judge John Roberts, Jr., to replace Justice Sandra Day O’Connor on the Supreme Court. Yet, there is a central fact that other writers will miss, most because they don’t know it, a handful because they fail to see its importance.
Start with this fact in all the biographies of Roberts. He argued 39 cases before the Supreme Court and won 25. Some came when he was in the Solicitor General’s office, where arguing before the Court is routine. But many of them came after he left the government to spend 21 years at Hogan & Hartson, a leading law firm.
For most of the nation’s history, ending a century ago, there was a group of lawyers who specialized in Supreme Court litigation. Some even put that on their letterheads. These private litigators who paralleled the Solicitor General’s office in handling most of the Supreme Court cases, no longer exists.
This group had a noble heritage. Former President John Quincy Adams was one of them. The most famous of his cases was The Amistad, seeking and winning vindication for the slaves who escaped their chains and took over that ship, and claimed their freedom when the ship reached Long Island.
What is the critical importance of John Roberts’ membership in this dying breed of Court specialists?
Look at the groups cranked up to oppose him. Or, sadly, look at some of the groups lined up for knee-jerk support. Most of these groups oppose or support Roberts because they believe he will, as a Justice, rule with / against them on a single, overriding issue.
Think about that. Most of those devoting energy and money to this, and future, Supreme Court nominations, are treating the Court as if it were a giant vending machine. Pull the correct lever, and out comes your preferred candy bar. That is exactly what’s wrong with a majority of the Court, today.
Consider the Court’s most recent and clearly abominable decision, the Kelo case. Five Justices ruled that New London, Connecticut, could seize private property not for “public use” as the Constitution says, but to turn that property over to another private owner to build a larger building and pay more taxes. Four Justices dissented strongly that the Court was rewriting and violating the Constitution.
Because his experience before the Court is greater than any other nominee in the history, when confirmed as Justice Roberts, he will not view the Court as a candy machine. He will not decide merely who wins this case. He will look at the Court as an institution, and at the Constitution as the most successful governing document in human history. He will not damage either one in the rush to get a “desired result” in the present case.
In short, the new Justice Roberts will be exactly what President Bush promised when he spoke of his possible nominations to the Court. Bush said he would choose Justices who would “obey the Constitution” rather than “legislate from the bench.”
Interestingly, this point can be demonstrated by a case decided by Judge Roberts that his opponents intend to use as a weapon against him. It was on a trivial matter, unless put it in this context: What is the role of a judge/Justice in the American form of government?
The “Case of the French Fry” involved a 12-year-old girl who was handcuffed and arrested for eating french fries on the Washington Metro. Self-evidently, the Metro police overreacted. They should have taken away the girl’s french fries, put her out of the station, and warned both her and her parents about obeying Metro rules in the future. But the issue before Judge Roberts was whether the constitutional rights of the girl had been violated. He ruled no.
This shows that Justice Roberts understands the critical difference between doing what he considers a “good thing,” and following the law including the Constitution. This is a fine appointment for the Court, the Constitution, and the nation.
Let’s hear no more about “moderation.” Do you want a moderate police officer, who arrests half of the criminals? Do you want a moderate surgeon, who fixes half of the diseased hearts? Then, why seek a moderate Justice, who will obey the Constitution half of the time?
There will be no filibuster. There will only be bluster. Then solid confirmation of Justice Roberts to the Supreme Court.
About the Author: John Armor is a civil rights attorney with three-decades’ experience in the US Supreme Court, who lives in the Blue Ridge Mountains of North Carolina. John_Armor@aya.yale.edu
Enjoy.
John / Billybob
President Bush nominated DC Circuit Court Judge John Roberts to the US Supreme Court. The Feminist Majority, the National Organization for Women, NARAL Pro-Choice America, and the National Abortion Federation all immediately announced their intentions to oppose Roberts for the position.
“I am extremely disappointed that the President did not appoint a centrist woman to fill Sandra Day O’Connor’s seat on the Supreme Court,” said Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority. “We are now going back to tokenism for women on the highest court in the land.”
“Everything we know about Judge Roberts’ record thus far indicates that he will be a solid vote against women’s rights and Roe v. Wade,” Smeal continued. “If he is to be confirmed by senators who support women’s rights, he must say where he stands on Roe and the right to privacy. The burden is on him.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1446803/posts
Good post. The ACJU article is a good endorsement too.
Excellent Congressman! Thank you for such a sober analysis.
I will go with Coulter the conservative rather than Roberts the republican.
ping
I'll go with Levin the conservative, who endorsed Roberts.
John, I was waiting for you to weigh in on Roberts before I either panicked or celebrated. You've provided great context for the nomination and I'm hopeful Roberts will be a good justice. Thanks for sharing your insights.
Reply to Coulter? Okay....how would you reply to her points about Roberts actions in Barry v. Little.
Thanks for your comments. I got a little worried after Ann Coulter's comments.
Freedom of choice, gotta love it.
I like your comment about the court not being a candy machine.
I take it you're real happy with this nominee. If he's able to interpret the Constitution, will he be able to persuade the other justices in his own arguments, both written and spoken? Will he be able to write clearly enough to educate the American people and congress?
I like to get Coulter's view. Levin's view is important. Also, Falwell may have good insight...
But I figure Congressman Billybob thinks like I do, so if John says Roberts is OK, then I'm no longer cautiously optimistic -- now I'm happy.
I've been waiting for you to weigh in with your opinion on President Bush's pick. Because of your background and experience, your opinion is more important to me than the 2,000 + comments on last night's thread. Many thanks for your thoughts on this.
Why are so many conservatives desperately trying to read this nomination as a failure of principle or political will? We all know, but it is sad to see. People who have made the perfect the enemy of the good don't get to enjoy the progress of goodness.
And how about Levin the "Great One"?
Good article. John G. Roberts is going to be an excellent Supreme Court Justice. Thanks go to President Bush for chosing such an outstanding person.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.