Posted on 07/20/2005 6:57:47 AM PDT by Oliver Optic
Roberts' qualifications hailed by Dr. Dobson, other family advocates; liberal groups immediately begin the attack.
President Bush on Tuesday unveiled his nominee to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the U.S. Supreme Court: federal appeals court Judge John Roberts, a choice roundly praised by family advocates.
"Judge Roberts is an unquestionably qualified attorney and judge with impressive experience in government and the private sector," said James C. Dobson, Ph.D., chairman of Focus on the Family Action. "He has demonstrated at every stop on his career path the legal acumen, judicial temperament and personal integrity necessary to be a Supreme Court justice."
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, agreed, calling Roberts an "exceptionally well-qualified and impartial nominee."
"Judge Roberts is widely respected for his fair judgments, intellect and integrity," perkins noted, "all things qualifying him to serve as the next Supreme Court Justice."
Pro-family legal experts who know Roberts best say they are extremely pleased with the pick.
Sean Rushton, executive director of the Committee for Justice, had high praise.
"I think it's a big victory for anybody who thinks that the Supreme Court has badly overstepped its legitimate authority over the past decades," Rushton said. "John Roberts is one of the truly great legal minds of his generation. He is a principled constitutionalist. He's held those views for a long time.
"He represents a very calm and very erudite perspective, but also one that has a core of judicial restraint behind it."
Northwestern University Law Professor Stephen Calabresi said Roberts is a top-drawer candidate.
"I think the president did something very bold here," Calabresi said. "Everyone really expected him to nominate a woman or a minority to succeed Justice O'Connor, and I think he did something bold and went with a person whom he thought was the very best and most qualified."
Roberts, a former clerk for Justice William Rehnquist, argued 39 cases before the Supreme Court as deputy solicitor general, before he was named in 2003 to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. He was confirmed to that post by the Senate on 99-0 vote -- after being stalled for more than two years by Democrats.
"He's a brilliant legal mind, and his qualifications are impeccable," Calabresi said. "I would say that Roberts is every bit as good as (Justice Antonin) Scalia or Rehnquist, for whom he clerked."
Indeed, "brilliant" seems to be the word most often applied to Roberts.
The Buffalo, N.Y., native took only three years to graduate from Harvard College in 1976 summa cum laude, and was at the top of his class at Harvard Law School -- from which he graduated in 1979.
"He's really a legal superstar," Rushton said. "The president has really hit a home run by picking him."
In his comments, Bush said Roberts had earned the respect of people from both political parties.
"After he was nominated for the Court of Appeals in 2001," he said, "a bipartisan group of more than 150 lawyers sent a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee. They wrote, 'Although as individuals we reflect a wide spectrum of political party affiliation and ideology, we are united in our belief that John Roberts will be an outstanding federal court appeals judge and should be confirmed by the United States Senate.' "
Douglas Kmiec, a law professor at Pepperdine University, and a distinguished conservative legal expert, said he was "surprised and very pleased" the president had nominated "someone who won't be imposing his ideas from the bench."
Kmiec said Roberts is "extremely effective," and said he had been described as "the smartest lawyer in America."
"But he is also an extremely likeable man," Kmiec said. "He's a person whose life is organized around his family, who takes a great interest in his neighbors, and . . . reflects all of those great Midwestern values of caring about your neighbor."
Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., a pro-family member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, praised the nomination.
"It is imperative that the next Supreme Court justice help restore the Constitutional balance of power between the branches of government and leave legislating to Congress and the states," said Coburn.
Filibuster or No Filibuster?
The big question is: Will Democrats in the Senate filibuster the nomination?
In a news release, the liberal activist group People for the American Way immediately went on the attack, characterizing Roberts' record as "troubling" -- and urging Americans to "wait until all the facts are in." The anti-Bush group MoveOn.org went one step further, urging its members and sympathizers to lobby their senators to oppose Roberts on the grounds that he is a "right-wing lawyer and corporate lobbyist."
In comments after the announcement, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, gave indications that he and his fellow Democrats in the Senate don't think highly of the candidate. He said Roberts was not what they considered a "consensus candidate" and virtually promised that Roberts would not have an easy time as a nominee.
"We need to ensure that the Supreme Court remains a protector of all Americans' rights and liberties from government intrusion," Leahy said, "and that the Supreme Court understands the role of Congress in passing legislation to protect ordinary Americans from abuse by powerful special interests. No one is entitled to a free pass to a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court."
Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., another member of the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee, unintentionally exposed the ultra-liberal view of the Supreme Court as a place where activist judges can best legislate from the bench, when he said, "Now that he is nominated for a position where he can overturn precedent and make law, it is even more important that he fully answers a very broad range of questions."
Concerning the Senate confirmation process, Coburn said, "I look forward to the opportunity to interview Judge Roberts and I support the right of senators to ask any appropriate question. The only litmus test the Senate should consider is Judge Robert's loyalty to the Constitution and its strict construction."
Calabresi said the comments by Leahy and Schumer show "how incredibly political the senators who have been opposing the president's judicial nominees are."
He added: "What they really want are judges who will pledge to decide certain cases in a certain way, which would compromise judicial independence.
Rushton said a filibuster by Senate Democrats -- though expected -- may not be a foregone conclusion.
"Joseph Lieberman, a fairly moderate Democrat from Connecticut, said on the record last week, that he told the White House that he would not consider Roberts as worthy of filibuster," he said.
Rushton said if Democrats attempt to filibuster Roberts over judicial ideology, Republican members of the so-called "Gang of 14" that struck the compromise deal have indicated they are willing to support the "constitutional option" to end the use of filibusters against judicial nominees.
"Either way," Rushton said, "even if they attempt to filibuster, I'm not sure they can get moderate Democrats to join. We might be able to beat it straight up. If we can't, then we will have the constitutional option."
"I think there will be a fight," Calabresi said, "but I do believe he'll be confirmed, and he ought to be confirmed. I think he certainly deserves an up-or-down vote."
Dobson agreed.
"We trust that, in light of Judge Roberts' rock-solid credentials," Dobson said, "the U.S. Senate will work together over the next several weeks to ensure he gets the up-or-down confirmation vote he is entitled to under the Constitution."
you are a good man.
Thanks for posting this....great read.
I am so happy with this pick, Pres. Bush did a great job.
Thanks for the ping! Guess some of the D&G "conservative" Freepers from last night still didn't have a clue as they were spreading their black cloud comments from thread to thread. :)
Provided we can get Kennedy on board or somebody.
Even with him, we still would not have a conservative majority.
Particularly since he has served in Republican administrations. It was noted last night that executive branch service is one of the best ways to ensure a judge does not evolve since they have set views that don't change.
I bet no conservatives on the court said they would have overturned Roe at their hearings, either.
He will use the phrase settled law but not really deny that he would overturn it when asked.
Judge Roberts seems a bit better grounded then that. I'm just trying to discover how far that goes before breaking out the champaign.
I don't blame people for being skeptical ... and all the Gonzales trial balloons kept the pot stirred.
But today is a good day, and as Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council puts it:
"There's no question that President Bush is a promise keeper."
It is a great day! Some of the black cloud comments were on here AFTER the announcement which was even funnier -- they had their attacks all programmed and even though it wasn't Clements they went right ahead which was hilarous.
"Conservatives who supported George W. Bush have no reason to be disappointed. He has more than fulfilled his pledge."
Since the median justice of SCOTUS (all too often, in recent years, O'Connor) prevails, it is a distant dream to have the difference between Rehnquist and Scalia become a significant factor in jurisprudence. Replacing O'Connor with Roberts will, presumably, make Kennedy and Souter the pivotal votes; if one of them votes with Scalia/Thomas then surely Rehnquist and Roberts will be on board as well.
Yes, I think throughout the process ... and especially last night ... you could tell the difference between anxious conservatives and those who have totally soured on the Republican party and the political process.
LOL ... you may be right.
On the other hand, if Christian conservatives were tight-lipped this morning, they would be getting grief for being sourpusses and impossible to please.
"Ending weeks of speculation, President George W. Bush announced his nomination of Judge John G. Roberts to the U.S. Supreme Court last night. Judge Roberts is superbly qualified and will serve the nation with dignity, honor, and great legal intelligence. He is one of the most respected and well-established attorneys in the nation, and his record of public service is stellar.
"Nevertheless, get ready for a heated and contentious confirmation process. Given the importance of this nomination, liberal opposition to Judge Roberts is almost inevitable. We will keep watch. Stay tuned."
It's the end of the world.
John Roberts ping.
Thanks and God bless.
I dunno, Ann is pretty good as far as students of history goes, I'm worried this will be another disappointment on the level of Sandy.
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.
