Roberts's Sterling Showing

Washington Post ^ | September 18, 2005 | David S. Broder

[RWR8189]

The question of whether Judge John Roberts is qualified to be chief justice of the United States has been rendered moot by his performance in the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings. He is so obviously -- ridiculously -- well-equipped to lead government's third branch that it is hard to imagine how any Democrats can justify a vote against his confirmation.

Start with his intellect. This is a man whose knowledge of constitutional law goes well beyond his intimate familiarity with seemingly every Supreme Court decision. It is rooted in a thorough understanding of American history. He quotes Hamilton in the Federalist Papers not to show off his erudition but to buttress a point completely pertinent to current debates.

Next, his temperament. He has a quick wit, one that repeatedly disarmed even the prickliest of his questioners. You don't have to be an expert on reading "body language," as Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma claimed to be, to see that he is perfectly comfortable in his own skin, immune to pressure.

What was most impressive to me was the depth of his appreciation of what it means to be a judge. It came through in many ways.

He said judges are not "automatons" but "bring our life experiences to the bench." But he quickly added that "the ideal in the American justice system is epitomized by the fact that judges -- justices -- do wear black robes, and that is meant to symbolize the fact that they're not individuals promoting their own particular views, but . . . doing their best to interpret the law, to interpret the Constitution, according to the rule of law."

His first mentor, appeals court Judge Henry Friendly, demonstrated "a total commitment to excellence in his craft at every stage

[JohnLongIsland]

judge roberts proved that the senate judiciary panel (and i am sorry to say the dems and republicans in this instance are equally guilty) has a combined iq of a retarded amoeba

[ncountylee]

I loved the quote - "Biden bruised his brain cell." LOL

[Uncle Miltie]

"Robertses's Sterling Showing's"

Just thot it cud use a few more apostrophe's and essess's they're.

[publiusF27]

This is a man whose knowledge of constitutional law goes well beyond his intimate familiarity with seemingly every Supreme Court decision.

Not every decision. When asked about the second amendment, he was aware of the Lopez case, and seemed familiar with it. He was also aware of the Emerson case, the 5th circuit case which said the 2nd protects an individual right.

However, Judge Roberts could not even remember the name of the Silviera vs Lockyer case, in which the 9th circuit said that the 2nd only protects a collective right. He also did not know the status of the case. (For those who also do not know, the case was appealed to the Supreme Court a year or so ago, and they refused to hear the case.)

This is a major conflict between two circuits on an important an politically charged Bill of Rights issue, and he doesn't know much about one of the two main cases. Color me unimpressed. I was also less than impressed with Roberts' apparent agreement with the majority in the Kelo and Raich cases.

[basil]

He sorta makes me feel right at home with the amoebas--LOL! I have to admit that I enjoy listening to him. I know a lot of Freepers don't seem to like him, but so far, I haven't heard anything to complain about.

[muawiyah]

Still, Judge Roberts spent all his formative years in Indiana where it's common to keep your rifles and shotguns on display in your living room.

[msnimje]

judge roberts proved that the senate judiciary panel (and i am sorry to say the dems and republicans in this instance are equally guilty) has a combined iq of a retarded amoeba

I was surprised by quite a few of them. Brownback is really smart as is Sessions and Kyle.
Graham was a real hoot.
And although I don't like him very much, Arlen Specter is very smart.

[LdSentinal]

Broder is praising Roberts? Need to get worried.

[fat city]

Right you are. There's a reason we don't see too many David Broder columns around here.

[Texan In NC]

Color me unimpressed.

I suppose only we should only be impressed with nominees who have completely memorized every single case involving the second amendment then.

With respect, activism at any level in the judiciary is the great evil. The fact that an issue is "politically charged" does not make it any more important a case for the judiciary. The end game here should be getting politics as far away from the chambers as possible.

Second amendment issues are important, don't get me wrong. But let's not fall prey to the trap that Dems and liberal activists have baited us for the last decade or four. When we get the judiciary OUT of the policy making business, and put the power of making laws back into the hands of the legistlative branch (oh, say like maybe that thing called the Constitution suggested) then we will be that much closer to the America that Jefferson and Madison envisioned and our fathers fought and died for.

Roberts worked without notes and he was unbelievably impressive as such. But don't be fooled into believing that he would hear 2nd amendment or any other type of case without notes. What I heard was someone who wanted desperately to let the legistlative and executive branch get back to doing what they were designed so brilliantly to do. What I heard from Schumer and Feinstein was the left's collective panic that their own political agenda can ONLY be supported by a few self-centered, self-appointed dictators in the judiciary and would fall on deaf ears if left up to the people in this country to decide. Let's NOT go there, too. We will prevail, when it's up to the people.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Broder is praising Roberts? Need to get worried.

More like Broder is conceding defeat and getting ready for the next DNC talking points fax on the next nominee.

[Redbob]

I haven't heard anything to feel anything whatsoever about.

This is your basic blank slate.

I'm more than a little concerned about giving so much power to a man who has so little demonstrable background - Teddy Kennedy's vile frothings notwithstanding.

[publiusF27]

I suppose only we should only be impressed with nominees who have completely memorized every single case involving the second amendment then.

Considering that there is a conflict between the circuits, and that there are only a total of 4 important cases involving the second amendment (Miller, Lopez, Emerson, and Silviera), I don't think it's too much to expect. I can remember them off the top of my head, and I'm not even a lawyer, let alone a SC nominee.

And even if he couldn't remember the names, I would think that before his confirmation hearings, he might just look into the status of the conflict between the circuits on this issue. He didn't. He was not sure whether Silviera vs Lockyer was still pending or not. Cert was denied by the Supreme Court a year or so ago. In all that time, he has not checked up on the issue.

I disagree that judicial acitivism is the great evil. It WAS, but now we need some judicial activists. For example, Scalia, the conservative, went along with preserving the existing order in the Raich case. He was upholding precedent, a favorite hobby of conservatives. Justice Thomas wrote the activist decision in that case, suggesting that the Court revisit their commerce clause jurisprudence. He wanted to overturn the line of precedents we've been following for 50 years, in favor of an interpretation which says that interstate means, well, interstate, and commerce means (this seems so darn obvious) commerce.

[nonsporting]

"Compassionate Judicialism."