Brownback wary of Roberts’ record

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WASHINGTON –– Sen. Sam Brownback isn’t sold on John G. Roberts, Jr. just yet. Not by a long shot.

The senator from Kansas is saying and doing some of the things a Republican member of the Judiciary Committee is supposed to be saying and doing about President Bush’s Supreme Court nominee: talking up Roberts’ resume and calling for a fair confirmation process.

But Brownback, one of the Senate’s leading social conservatives, has concerns about Roberts’ views on key issues, such as abortion. With only two years on a federal appeals court, Roberts’ judicial philosophy is largely unknown. While he did co-write a brief as a government lawyer urging that Roe v. Wade be overturned, Roberts told the Senate during his 2003 confirmation hearing that he considers the Roe decision “the settled law of the land.”

“There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent,” Roberts told the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“In the past, we’ve seen that if someone is not well articulated on a position, the tendency is to move left on the bench,” Brownback said, citing Justice David Souter as an example.

Even so, Brownback doesn’t have much company among conservatives in publicly questioning Roberts’ nomination.

Privately, some conservatives were expressing qualms about Roberts as late as Wednesday afternoon, according to some Capitol Hill insiders. But a few bloggers and an Ann Coulter column aside, most fell in behind the Roberts nomination once Bush made his pick.

“I don’t think there’s any evidence that he’ll be another Souter,” said James Dobson, president of Focus on the Family, in urging Roberts’ speedy confirmation. “Justice Souter was a black box. No one knew what was in it. We know a lot about Judge Roberts.”

Others have called the Roberts pick a “home run” from the conservative perspective.

Given Roberts’ short paper trail, the conservatives’ approval is based largely on “a gestalt, the image on the page,” said Hadley Arkes, a leading conservative scholar at Amherst College who knows Roberts socially.

“They know who his friends are,” Arkes said. “They know what he springs from. … People draw their inferences. We’ll take our chances with someone like that.”

While Roberts’ judicial philosophy may be hard to gauge after only a couple of years as a federal appeals court judge, his private views are well-known, said Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University.

“People in the White House and others are getting the word out that there’s nothing to fear here,” Turley said. ”They are certifying this guy. … He is only a blank slate to those who don’t know him.”

Brownback will get a chance to know Roberts at a meeting sometime next week. And Brownback said he hopes the confirmation hearings will shed enough light that Roberts’ philosophy will become more clear.

“Trust but verify,” Brownback said, adding that he was satisfied with the level of consultation he got from the White House before Roberts’ nomination.

“I had concerns about some of the names being considered,” Brownback said. “And those people weren’t offered.”

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To reach Matt Stearns, call (202) 383-6009 or send e-mail to mstearns@krwashington.com.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What's Brownback gonna do, vote against him? Geez, this goes in the "with friends like him, who needs enemies?" category.

The context of what Judge John Roberts is important. An appellate court judge can be fired for having too many decisions reversed.

Therefore, it is suicidal on the appellate level to try to reverse Roe v. Wade.

On the other hand, SCOTUS answers to no one. If he, Scalia, Rehnquist, Thomas, and another Supreme Court Justice join together and say Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton do not take into account the human life and the rights of that human life, then they can be overturned.

Context is everything in this. He also clerked for Chief Justice Rehnquist -- the only living dissenter on the Roe v. Wade dissenter.

Add to the fact that he was counsel to Ronald Reagan, and I think the good Senator from Kansas is just being cautious and prudent, there is nothing to worry about.

Besides, any Catholic going to a church named Little Flower will not reject the wishes of heaven (the movie Therese was about the Little Flower -- Saint Theresa of Liseaux).

There may be concerns about his son break dancing -- in front of the president of the United States and the MSM -- during the nomination.

But that might be a first for the US Supreme Court -- rejecting a nominee for the actions of his 4 year son...

Isn't Brownback a supporter of stronger border security?

Here's what I've found from him;

John Hawkins: The Republican Party seems to be divided on illegal immigration. On one side we have some Republicans who don't seem very concerned about illegal aliens or border security and on the other side, we have legislators who consider border security and getting rid of illegal aliens to be a very high priority. Where do you stand and what do you think we need to be doing on the issue?

Sam Brownback: I think there’s great uniformity in the party on what we need to do. I think everybody agrees that we need to strengthen the borders and strengthen enforcement -- and then try to provide some system for people who seek to work here but not stay and become citizens -- and a system that’s not overly cumbersome that they can’t access and use.

I think everybody agrees on that basic premise and then where the divergence comes is some people want a tougher enforcement system, other people want a more lucrative work system. I think if cooler minds prevail on this that you’re going to be able to get the balance of both of those together and if we get it right we will substantially reduce the number of undocumented individuals in the United States which right now is way too high and we’ve got to start getting that number down.

John Hawkins: Now, would it be beneficial in your opinion to get it down by just simply making them citizens?

Sam Brownback: I don’t think anybody’s looking at that and I’m not familiar with individuals in the Republican party that are looking at a system like what President Reagan did, where he just granted a blanket amnesty. I think everybody is considering how to get people, particularly ones that are already here in the United States, into a legal system -- using a combination of getting the social security system and card to a point where it is verifiable and useable as an employer to be able to determine if somebody is a legal person -- sanctions on the company if they do know that this person is illegally here and still employs that person -- and then on top of that providing some sort of incentive to get into a worker system -- either getting a green card after working a number of years in the United States -- and the legalized system as an incentive to get people into that system.

John Hawkins: Last question on illegal immigration – some people have pointed out that for people who have followed the rules and waited in line, it’s unfair to them to allow illegals who are already here to go ahead and be allowed into the system. They have suggested that perhaps we should lock down the borders as closely as we can, which is something you seem to agree with basically, and also crack down on any employers who happen to be hiring illegals which they say would induce most of the illegals that are here to self-deport. Then we could go ahead and maybe set up a system to cover the people who’ve been waiting legally. Would you support that sort of thing?

Sam Brownback: Well, I think you have to get a system where the employer, when he checks through government apparatuses, knows whether the person is actually here legally or illegally. The current system is flawed on that. The social security card system is flawed and there is a lot of fraudulent numbers and cards being used and then they’re not checked back in and through the system and that’s got to be dealt with, for one.

I don’t know that you’re going to be able to get the number I’ve heard – 8 to 11 million undocumented individuals in the United States – out of the country to register and to come back. That’s why I personally have favored some sort of system where they have to register, but they can register here to be able to get into a legalized system, if there’s a penalty for their being here both illegally and registering for the legal system -- but not a forced exiting before they can come back.

http://www.rightwingnews.com/interviews/brownback.php

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.