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."
Bush should get a solid A for his nomination. Now it's up to Roberts.
Conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly said she did not know Roberts' record in detail but was reassured by what she's heard. "One vote on the court won't solve all of our problems," she said, "but this is a great first step."
Christian Coalition Believes President Bush Nominated to the Supreme Court a Strict Constructionist in Judge John Roberts
WOW....this is great...the liberal loons are breathing fire... ;o)
Yes, after all the months "gearing up" for the battle, I think the liberals realize there is really nothing they can do about this.
"Judge Roberts is going to be strong on statutory interpretation and strong on Constitutional interpretation. He is not somebody who wants to legislate from the bench. This is exactly what the President said that he would give us and he has."
Especially this guy, who according to Scalia never gets flustered in court no matter how many questions are flying at him.
So far we have the following Christian conservatives strongly on board with the Roberts nomination:
James Dobson (Focus on the Family)
Jay Sekulow (American Center for Law and Justice)
Edwin Meese
Pat Robertson
Jerry Falwell
Gary Bauer
Louis Sheldon (Coalition for Traditional Values)
Christian Coalition
American Family Association
Phyllis Schlafly (Eagle Forum)
Uh ... I don't think this is a Souter.
Excuse me. To what was his oath of office? What is to the Constitution or to the SCOTUS' decisions? If the Consitution only means what SCOTUS says it means, why do we need a written Constition? (to quote Sobran).
It's sad when Ann Coulter has more of a backbone than Christian or pro-life leaders.
"A culture of life can never be built as long as Roe v. Wade is the law of the land," said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman.
"We appreciate President Bush being a man of his word by appointing a judge that will respect the Right to Life acknowledged by our nation's founding documents," said Newman. "We pray that Roberts will be swiftly confirmed."
"Our nation has suffered enough under decades of liberal activist judges legislating from the bench," said OR spokesperson Cheryl Sullenger. "After 45 million dead children, we are guardedly optimistic that the confirmation of Judge Roberts will be a step toward restoring protections for the pre-born that were stolen from them in 1973."
Good article. Ann Coulter should read this.
I went to google beta for the latest. Under the new Supreme Court nominee is the link 365Gay.com. This makes it look like Bush has nominated a Gay, but it's not true. Nevertheless, the Democrats would oppose and fight tooth and nail. They do not care what their voting blocks think, they make ammends later. But wouldn't it be weird if the guy was a Log Cabin Republican?!?!?!
I don't think it even remotely possible.
So what did the article say?.... The ones I've seen from the groups such as that have been expressing concern over his nomination ...
Ditto.
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.