Judge John Roberts (D.C. Circuit): D.C. Circuit Judge Gets on Supreme Court Short List.

D.C. Circuit Judge Gets on Supreme Court Short List Tony Mauro John Roberts Jr., the newest judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, was hanging back.

During a typical oral argument last week, colleague Harry Edwards fussed and fumed at the lawyers before him, while David Sentelle tossed out avuncular one-liners in his thick Southern drawl.

But Roberts, the third judge on the panel, was quiet. When he did speak finally, he was barely audible, politely asking a question or two, but never tipping his hand. To anyone watching for the first time, Roberts barely made an impression.

Suddenly, though, a lot of people are talking about this quiet judge, who just turned 50. The fickle spotlight on possible nominees to the Supreme Court if Chief Justice William Rehnquist departs has swung toward Roberts, and seems to be lingering.

In spite of Roberts' quiet manner, his credentials -- former Rehnquist law clerk, deputy solicitor general, top-flight practitioner at Hogan & Hartson and, in the estimation of some, the finest oral advocate before the high court in the last decade -- are speaking for him and winning fans. Add to that a brief 20-month tenure on the court that provides few targets for Democrats, and Roberts is emerging as a top candidate for the high court.

"He is well in the running, and he is superb," says C. Boyden Gray, partner at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr and chairman of the Committee for Justice, which fights for President George W. Bush's judicial nominees.

"He's a great judge here, but I think we're going to lose him" to the Supreme Court, says a fellow D.C. Circuit judge who asked not to be named.

At a recent discussion before the local chapter of the Corporate Counsel Association, Roberts got considerable mention when a panel of Supreme Court experts was asked to handicap possible nominees.

"I think it will be John Roberts," said Latham & Watkins partner Maureen Mahoney, who is on some lists herself. "He has the brilliance, dedication and temperament to emerge as an intellectual leader of the Court," she said afterward.

Getting to this point has been a long and steady climb for Roberts, who was first nominated to the D.C. Circuit while he was in the Office of the Solicitor General in 1992. His nomination died, prompting Roberts to return to Hogan and build an esteemed and lucrative Supreme Court practice. He argued 39 cases before the Court in both the private and public sector, winning 25.

The current President Bush nominated him again in 2001, and again Roberts languished until finally winning unanimous confirmation in 2003. His pay cut is breathtaking: According to his financial disclosure form, Hogan paid Roberts just over $1 million in 2003, a combination of salary plus the payout representing a departing partner's ownership interest in the firm. As an appeals court judge, Roberts makes $171,800 a year.

With all the recent talk, Roberts has joined 4th Circuit Judges J. Michael Luttig and J. Harvie Wilkinson III and 10th Circuit Judge Michael McConnell on the short list of those who might get the nod, especially if President Bush replaces Rehnquist as chief justice with Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas.

But there is one way in which Roberts stands apart from -- and possibly ahead of -- the others. Luttig, with 13 years on the 4th Circuit, and Wilkinson with 20 have written enough opinions that it is easy to chart how conservative they are. McConnell has only two years on the 10th Circuit, but he has a provocative paper trail from his 17 years as a prolific conservative law school professor.

By contrast, Roberts, with 20 months on the D.C. Circuit, has few opinions or other writings that have attracted enemies. As a result, some conservatives have made unflattering comparisons between Roberts and Supreme Court Justice David Souter, whose short stint on the 1st Circuit before being appointed in 1990 by President George H.W. Bush failed to reveal Souter's moderate-to-liberal leanings on some issues.

Yet those who know Roberts say he, unlike Souter, 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 at the Justice Department into the Bush years, working with Kenneth Starr among others, and even his lunchtime conversations at Hogan & Hartson. "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?

Florida personal injury lawyer Dean Colson of Colson Hicks Eidson in Coral Gables, who has known Roberts since they clerked for Rehnquist together in 1980, side-steps the question.

Colson calls Roberts "the smartest lawyer in America," someone who will "approach the cases with an intellectual viewpoint. I don't view him as having an agenda to promote."

But does that mean conservatives can't count on Roberts? "I don't know the answer as to how he would vote on specific issues," says Colson. "I would never ask him, and I hope he never tells anybody what he would do."

Mark Levin, author of "Men in Black," a new conservative critique of the Supreme Court, sees no conflict and is a fan of Roberts. "In the short period he has been on the court, John Roberts has shown he does not bring a personal agenda to his work. He follows the Constitution, and he is excellent."

E. Barrett Prettyman Jr., a longtime Roberts fan and lifelong Democrat who worked with him for years at Hogan, says that if anyone can be both judicious and predictable, Roberts can.

"He respects the Court greatly, and would not ignore precedent," says Prettyman. "But if there's a loophole or a distinguishing factor, he'd find it."

Roberts himself declined to comment for this story, but during his January 2003 Senate confirmation hearing, he made it clear that he prefers impartiality over predictability. For example, he criticized the press for identifying judges according to whether they were appointed by Democratic or Republican presidents.

"That gives so little credit to the work that they put into the case," he said. "They work very hard, and all of a sudden the report is, well, they just decided that way because of politics. That is a disservice to them."

So far on the D.C. Circuit, Roberts' votes have mainly fallen on the conservative side, but not always.

Last December, in United States v. Mellen, Roberts ruled in favor of a criminal defendant who challenged his sentence in a fraud case. Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson -- yes, an appointee of the first President Bush -- dissented.

In the July 2004 decision Barbour v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), Roberts joined Merrick Garland -- a Clinton appointee -- in deciding that sovereign immunity did not bar a D.C employee with bipolar disorder from suing the transit agency under federal laws barring discrimination against the disabled. Conservative Sentelle dissented.

But then there was another WMATA case -- known as the french fry case -- which some critics point to as a sign of a certain hard-heartedness in Roberts' decision making.

In the unanimous ruling last October in Hedgepeth v. WMATA, Roberts upheld the arrest, handcuffing and detention of a 12-year-old girl for eating a single french fry inside a D.C. Metrorail station. "No one is very happy about the events that led to this litigation," Roberts acknowledged in the decision, but he ruled that nothing the police did violated the girl's Fourth Amendment or Fifth Amendment rights.

Roberts also displayed what some viewed as insouciance toward arroyo toads in a 2003 case, Rancho Viejo v. Norton. Roberts wanted the full D.C. Circuit to reconsider a panel's decision that upheld a Fish and Wildlife Service regulation protecting the toads under the Endangered Species Act. Roberts said there could be no interstate commerce rationale for protecting the toad, which, he said, "for reasons of its own lives its entire life in California."

In another decision last June, Roberts went even further than his colleagues in supporting the Bush administration in a case that pitted the government against veterans of the first Gulf War. American soldiers captured and tortured by the Iraqi government during the first Gulf War sued the Iraqi government in U.S. court and won nearly $1 billion in damages at the district court level.

But once Saddam was toppled in 2003, the Bush administration wanted to protect the new Iraqi government from liability and intervened to block the award. Roberts, alone among the circuit judges who ruled with the government, said the federal courts did not even have jurisdiction to consider the victims' claim. An appeal is before the Supreme Court.

"These decisions are troubling in a lot of ways," says Elliot Mincberg of the liberal People for the American Way, a point person in any battle over Supreme Court nominees.

But Mincberg's criticism of Roberts may be muted somewhat by the fact that he worked with Roberts at Hogan years back and likes him personally. "He's a very smart lawyer and easy to work with, but there is no question he is very, very conservative," says Mincberg.

Another person who might otherwise be a critic of Roberts is a longtime friend. Georgetown University Law Center professor Richard Lazarus, an environmental law advocate, was a classmate of Roberts at Harvard Law School and roomed with him when they first came to Washington 25 years ago.

"John Roberts and I are very good friends, and I think very highly of him as a person, lawyer and judge," says Lazarus with care. "After that, I have to bow out."

Lazarus would not comment further, but other friends say the roots of Roberts' conservatism can be traced to his days as a Harvard undergraduate, toward the end of the Vietnam War. Seeing fellow students demonstrate in sympathy with Ho Chi Minh, one said, did not sit well with Roberts, who grew up in Indiana.

As unassuming as Roberts is, he also has a keen sense of humor, friends say. When Roberts was deputy solicitor general in 1990, he and Hogan friend Prettyman were adversaries in Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, a case that turned out to be a landmark decision narrowing the doctrine of standing. Prettyman's federation clients claimed they had standing to challenge certain Interior Department land management decisions because they used nearby land for recreational purposes. Roberts argued that was not a specific enough injury to achieve standing.

Before the argument, Prettyman says, Roberts went out West to look over the public lands at issue in the case. "He sent me a postcard from out there," Prettyman recalls. "He wrote that he had looked and looked for my client, but couldn't find her."

As it turned out, neither could the Supreme Court. It ruled 5-4 that Prettyman's clients had no right to sue. Roberts' argument won the day.

It would depend on the case. The conservative stand is not always the correct one. Sometimes when a judge decides against the "conservative" position, it tends to be because he/she doesn't think it's a federal issue. I am comfortable with a judge who will be as much against conservative judicial activism as one who is against liberal judicial activism. As long as he interprets the Constitution as written and originally intended, I'm satisfied.

That could also mean that it's Gonzales (who I would personally oppose - of all the supposed candidates he's the least appealing) and that the White House is tapping Cornyn as his "sponsor" to shepherd him through the technicalities of the confirmation process.

Quite a few people have pointed out to me that a judge who always decides cases in a way that is aimed at pleasing Conservatives is not a good judge. I agree completely.

It's a matter of semantics, I think. In the article, it says that his votes often fall on "the conservative side". My reading of that (which was perhaps incorrect) was that Roberts often decides in favor of Original Intent and in accordance with how the Constitution is actually written. This is what I would consider a conservative approach. Perhaps not the same as a Conservative approach.

I want a judge who cares about Original Intent and who does not legislate from the bench in an activist manner. I currently do not know if Roberts fits that description. Al I know is that I do not want a judge who "often" fits that description. I want a judge who is 100% in favor of Original Intent.

And that is why Democrats/liberals/progressives/socialists or whatever label they are using for themselves this week view originalists with such fear. They realize that, should a majority of the Court be composed of such originalists, they've lost all chance of attaining their agenda (since their agenda rarely generates sufficient public support to pass legislatively.....although it seems to be doing so more frequently - just look at the expansion of the Medicare entitlement and of the No Child Left Behind act!)

Yes, it depends completely on what the author was referring to. I think, though that he may have been referring to the outcome of the case in a political sense rather than the process/rationale used to justify the decision. I was rather concerned that Judge Roberts was indeed another Souter in waiting. Reading this article put my mind at ease, a bit. I was also quite surprised to read People for the American Way actually identified as liberal group for once instead of as non-partisan as you usually see in the MSM.

Well, lets see what sorts of things THE AUTHOR OF THE CONSTITUTION might find unconstitutional:

If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress. Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.
-James Madison

(NCLB is uncosntitional, these pork barrel transportation bills are unconstitional, the department of transportation is unconstitional, the department of energy is unconstitional, the department of educaiton is unconstitional, and on and on and on and ona ndn on and on and on and on)

And bush is proposing to fund churches in his 'faith based' initiatives. It is just all so horrific.

What about President Bush's choice?

He wants a "Strict Constitutionalist"! That's it! Not liberal, not conservative, just a strict constitutionalist!

He doesn't want any activist judges at all!

Here is an example of what I would consider a idiotic law, "a taxi cannot pick up passengers at a bus stop", its socialist, its stupid, and it is constitutional.

My definition of a socialist law would not include your example (although you are right that it is a stupid law). To me, a socialist law is one that takes rights or property from one group of individuals to give to another with no separate public policy justification. Such laws are unconstitutional under an originalist interpretation of the constitution.

Stop.

Your using logic and common sense.

This is the courts we are talking about.

Isn't there some kind of rule that bars using normal logical rational common sense?

I'm sorry, I just really hate these folks and resent the fact that they ignore the legislature.

If I sound bitter about judges, I do apologise.

I'm sorry, but I really do hate judges and have no faith in them whatsoever.

I'm sorry, I just really hate these folks and resent the fact that they ignore the legislature.

I share your feelings. However, my point was that you shouldn't focus your anger on judges ignoring the legislature, but rather ignoring the Constitution. Most of the laws written by the legislature are unconstitutional under an originalist interpretation. For example, a case striking down a gun control law on 2nd Amendment grounds would be ignoring the legislature, but is clearly just.

The legislature oversteps their authority as much as judges. The trick is to get judges in power like Clarence Thomas that will use the Constitution as their guide in striking down laws, rather than their own political whims. We also need to get more conservatives in acedemia. It is the law professors who are brainwashing the young lawyers that the :living breathing Constitution" is a legal reality.

Same here I don't want an activist judge even a conservative one. If the constitution for arguments sake said women have the right to all abortions.. then I would expect the judge to uphold that right. It is the job then of the congress and states to change the constitution.

Good point young conservatives seem drawn to other areas then law, like business. Part of it might be that you have to get some other degree, before you can go into law. And that other degree almost always seems to be some sort of social science type.

So they are getting a double brainwashing, first the left wing revisionist view of history or whichever social science, then more years of 'social justice' law professors.

Do you oppose this?

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.