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."
What is his stance on the rest of the Constitution? Like the Second Amendment. Does he know what "shall not be infringed" means?
Some supportive statements for what it's worth.....
I am not a social conservative but it's very good for the country that those who elected Bush feel they got what they paid for. Hopefully, everyone will see this as proof that our system works, that elections matter and do reflect the will of the majority.
libs are upset. Great job W!
Brian Fahling, senior trial attorney for the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy, believes Judge Roberts is an excellent choice: “He was an extraordinary lawyer, and I am persuaded he well be an exceptional justice. President Bush, in my opinion, has kept his promise to nominate an individual who will interpret, not rewrite the Constitution.”
Fahling noted that as deputy solicitor in the Regan Administration, Roberts had argued in a brief that Roe v. Wade should be overturned, but that in his confirmation hearings to the court of appeals, Roberts stated that Roe v. Wade is settled law that he would faithfully apply as a judge. “These are not inconsistent positions,” said Fahling; “They reflect a consistent and principled jurisprudence that understands the principle of authority and the rule of law.”
Fahling explained that “as a government lawyer, Roberts could argue that Roe should be reversed, but as an appellate court judge, he held an office under the ultimate authority, by constitutional design, of the Supreme Court. He had no authority to reverse Roe as an appellate court judge, but if confirmed as a Supreme Court justice he will have that constitutional authority.”
I'm asking the same thing. The seemingly unanimous praise from all corners of FR makes me wonder if we're missing something. No more Souters, please.
That, my friend, is a very gracious statement on your part.
So far, the cases I've read that he has argued definately puts him closer to Renquist. However, I was hoping for another Thomas. I'll take what I can get on other issues as long as the guy is solid on "shall not be infringed".
Larry's cool. I like to think we're influencing him. ;-)
Does anyone know Robert's views on abortion, evolution, and gay marriage?
Souter is a lightweight, and as an outsider lacked the strength of character or intellect to resist the pressure to "evolve" as a justice.
None of these traits apply to Roberts. He has solid character, a brilliant mind, is firmly grounded in his religion, legal philosophy, and family, and has lived in Washington for many years.
I am unconcerned that Roberts is a Souter or that he will "evolve" while on the bench.
Mark Levin, author of "Men in Black," a new conservative critique of the Supreme Court, sees no conflict and is a fan of Roberts. "In the short period he has been on the court, John Roberts has shown he does not bring a personal agenda to his work. He follows the Constitution, and he is excellent."D.C. Circuit Judge Gets on Supreme Court Short List
Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, believes that John Roberts will make an excellent addition to the Court. "I've known Judge Roberts for 17 years and litigated with him at the Supreme Court of the United States," he said. "There can be no question that Judge Roberts is exceptionally well qualified to serve as the next Supreme Court Justice."
"A man of character, Judge Roberts understands the Constitution and has a record of applying the law -- not legislating from the bench."
Rev. Louis P. Sheldon, chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition, said, "Conservatives who supported George W. Bush have no reason to be disappointed. He has more than fulfilled his pledge."
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, echoes these sentiments, saying, "There's no question that President Bush is a promise keeper."
As we have seen many times there are no guarantees when it comes to picking a Justice. I think Bush did the best we could hope for. The rest is up to Roberts.
I don't think this is a squishy moderate pick. :-)
Nothing up yet from Phyllis Schlafly at Eagle Forum.
I think it is well-known he is not going to be a Thomas or Scalia, but will be a more moderate conservative like Rehnquist. But, he will be conservative and will give us more victories.
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.