Jay Sekulow calls John Roberts, Jr. an "Exceptional" Choice Who Will Interpret the Constitution

American Center for Law and Justice ^ | July 19, 2005 | Jay Sekulow

[shield]

ACLJ Calls John Roberts, Jr. - President Bush's Supreme Court Nominee - an "Exceptional" Choice Who Will Interpret the Constitution

July 19, 2005

(Washington, DC) – The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), specializing in constitutional law said today that John Roberts, Jr., the nominee named by President Bush for a seat on the Supreme Court of the United States, is an exceptional choice who will bring sound legal reasoning to the high court.

“Judge Roberts is an exceptional choice who will bring sound legal reasoning to the Supreme Court of the United States,” said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ, who argues regularly before the high court. “He was one of the most gifted advocates before the high court and has served with distinction on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. In my dealings with Judge Roberts over the years, I have found him to be a ‘lawyer’s lawyer’ exhibiting uncommon insight and judgment. A man of character, Judge Roberts understands the Constitution and has a record of applying the law – not legislating from the bench. He is extremely well suited and well qualified to serve this country on the nation’s highest court. We call on the Senate to begin the confirmation process and move swiftly to conduct fair hearings and to confirm this exceptional nominee.”

Sekulow, who argues frequently before the Supreme Court, said the ACLJ will begin mobilizing a national campaign to ensure that Judge Roberts is confirmed. Sekulow said he will generate support for the nominee through his daily radio broadcast that reaches 1.5 million listeners, through his weekly television show, by using direct mail, phone calls, and emails to a list approaching one million supporters.

“We are prepared for a very intense battle that is certain to begin immediately,” said Sekulow. “We already have experienced the obstructionist tactics used to keep President Bush’s federal appeals court nominees off the bench. This Supreme Court nomination represents the culmination of years of preparation and focus. And we are prepared to ensure that the Constitution is complied with in this confirmation battle. We support President Bush’s nominee and are launching a national campaign to ensure that the nominee is confirmed.”

Led by Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow, the American Center for Law and Justice is based in Washington, D.C.

[shield]

Probably the best conservative legal advocate in the country.

I agree...that's exactly why I checked Jay out this AM to see if he was supporting Judge Roberts. ;o)

[Coldwater Creek]

ABSOLUTELY!!!!!!!

[savedbygrace]

Sounds like you also trust Jay Sekulow, as I do.

Trust but verify. (Many here will quote President Reagan with this line, but haven't actually taken his wise advice.) Trust but verify.

I'm sure some wiseacre is going to want to pounce on me and say that President Reagan was referring to the Evil Empire, and Jay Seculow isn't the Evil Empire. I say, the principle is sound, no matter who is offering the opinion.

[shield]

appointing Edith Jones

I wish he'd appoint Brown...first Blk Women on the Supreme Court.

[DJtex]

You have the right to your opinion. But if you are way to the right of Jay Sekulow, John Roberts, and George W. Bush, please realize that you are in the 10% range--almost beyond political relavance in the true fight for the majority in actual day-to-day politics in this country.

[traderrob6]

Cept for Coulter who was a real dissapointment today.

[need_a_screen_name]

Me too! Me too! Someone please ping or mail me if you guys find anything in print. I suspect there is nothing to worry about, but it would be nice to know where he stands.

[samadams2000]

What if Roberts is another cleaned up hippie?

[tame]

But if you are way to the right of Jay Sekulow, John Roberts, and George W. Bush, please realize that you are in the 10% range

True.

--almost beyond political relavance in the true fight for the majority in actual day-to-day politics in this country.

Not true. radical conservatives make excellent, impassioned grass roots activists who work VERY hard to get people like Bush elected, which I did (see tame's activism updates on my links page).

Our volunteer efforts should NEVER be underestimated in getting Republicans elected.

[FaithintheRight]

Senator Durbin on C-Span 2 - discussing Judge Roberts

[Always Right]

Cept for Coulter who was a real dissapointment today.

That is why I qualified it with people who actually know Roberts. Coulter just trashed him because she has no idea who he is. Coulter was shooting from the hip, and should have done more research or waited to find out more about him.

[sittnick]

appointing Edith Jones

I wish he'd appoint Brown...first Blk Women on the Supreme Court.

Agreed, but let her warm her present seat up first.

[savedbygrace]

Why? Please go back and re-read her column. All she said was that we don't have an adequate paper trail to know for certain what his judicial philosphy is. That's the comparison to Souter. (Well, she did come down on President Bush for not naming someone who does have an adequate trail, but that's not a bad opinion. It's just different than yours.)

We are now beginning to get some good endorsements that tend to fill in some of the blanks. But the proof is in the pudding. Let's hear what he says in the confirmation hearings.

Trust but verify.

[Prophet in the wilderness]

ACLJ: The American Center for Law and Justice

[joesnuffy]

FIGHT -- FROM THE RIGHT: COULTER SAYS BUSH PICK WRONG

"We don’t know much about John Roberts. Stealth nominees have never turned out to be a pleasant surprise for conservatives. Never. Not ever... Oh, yeah...we know he's argued cases before the supreme court. big deal; so has Larry Flynt's attorney."

So declares conservative columnist Ann Coulter in a new dispatch set for release.

Coulter continues: It means nothing that Roberts wrote briefs arguing for the repeal of Roe v. Wade when he worked for Republican administrations. He was arguing on behalf of his client, the United States of America. Roberts has specifically disassociated himself from those cases, dropping a footnote to a 1994 law review article that said:

“In the interest of full disclosure, the author would like to point out that as Deputy Solicitor General for a portion of the 1992-93 Term, he was involved in many of the cases discussed below. In the interest of even fuller disclosure, he would also like to point out that his views as a commentator on those cases do not necessarily reflect his views as an advocate for his former client, the United States.”

This would have been the legal equivalent, after O.J.'s acquittal, of Johnnie Cochran saying, "hey, I never said the guy was innocent. I was just doing my job."

And it makes no difference that conservatives in the White House are assuring us Roberts can be trusted. We got the exact same assurances from officials working for the last president Bush about David Hackett Souter. I believe their exact words were, "Read our lips; Souter's a reliable conservative."

From the theater of the absurd category, the Republican National Committee’s “talking points” on Roberts provide this little tidbit:

“In the 1995 case of Barry v. Little, Judge Roberts argued—free of charge—before the D.C. Court of Appeals on behalf of a class of the neediest welfare recipients, challenging a termination of benefits under the District’s Public Assistance Act of 1982.”

I'm glad to hear the man has a steady work record, but how did this make it to the top of his resume?

Finally, lets ponder the fact that Roberts has gone through 50 years on this planet without ever saying anything controversial. That’s just unnatural.

If a smart and accomplished person goes this long without expressing an opinion, they'd better be pursuing the Miss America title.

Developing...

[Battle Hymn of the Republic]

What's wrong with cleaned up hippie? Sometimes those who have been on the dark side and if they have seen the light, are the strongest.

Better than a lot of stuffed-suit wind bag, CINOs. Best,

[shield]

Jay Sekulow is the endorsement I was looking for.

[joesnuffy]

FIGHT -- FROM THE RIGHT: COULTER SAYS BUSH PICK WRONG

"We don’t know much about John Roberts. Stealth nominees have never turned out to be a pleasant surprise for conservatives. Never. Not ever... Oh, yeah...we know he's argued cases before the supreme court. big deal; so has Larry Flynt's attorney."

So declares conservative columnist Ann Coulter in a new dispatch set for release.

Coulter continues: It means nothing that Roberts wrote briefs arguing for the repeal of Roe v. Wade when he worked for Republican administrations. He was arguing on behalf of his client, the United States of America. Roberts has specifically disassociated himself from those cases, dropping a footnote to a 1994 law review article that said:

“In the interest of full disclosure, the author would like to point out that as Deputy Solicitor General for a portion of the 1992-93 Term, he was involved in many of the cases discussed below. In the interest of even fuller disclosure, he would also like to point out that his views as a commentator on those cases do not necessarily reflect his views as an advocate for his former client, the United States.”

This would have been the legal equivalent, after O.J.'s acquittal, of Johnnie Cochran saying, "hey, I never said the guy was innocent. I was just doing my job."

And it makes no difference that conservatives in the White House are assuring us Roberts can be trusted. We got the exact same assurances from officials working for the last president Bush about David Hackett Souter. I believe their exact words were, "Read our lips; Souter's a reliable conservative."

From the theater of the absurd category, the Republican National Committee’s “talking points” on Roberts provide this little tidbit:

“In the 1995 case of Barry v. Little, Judge Roberts argued—free of charge—before the D.C. Court of Appeals on behalf of a class of the neediest welfare recipients, challenging a termination of benefits under the District’s Public Assistance Act of 1982.”

I'm glad to hear the man has a steady work record, but how did this make it to the top of his resume?

Finally, lets ponder the fact that Roberts has gone through 50 years on this planet without ever saying anything controversial. That’s just unnatural.

If a smart and accomplished person goes this long without expressing an opinion, they'd better be pursuing the Miss America title.

Developing...

[rwa265]

"Just got into FReep mode... is this guy pro RKBA or what? Anybody know yet?"

I'm not sure if the NRA knows yet. All they had on their web site was the following:

Introducing John Roberts

Manuel Miranda, founder and chairman of the Third Branch Conference, an ad hoc coalition set up to educate leaders of grassroots conservative organizations on judicial issues and coordinate action strategy, discusses the nomination of John Roberts to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Read About It: Wall Street Journal

POSTED: 7/20/2005

http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/InTheNews.aspx?ID=6158