Bush's High Court Pick Earns High Praise (from Christian Conservatives)

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.

"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."

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.

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."

"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."

He is pro-States Rights on the Roe V Wade issue

Where do you see that? I haven't seen a statement concerning his stance on states rights

No Senator it is imperative that the next Supreme Court justice help restore the Constitutional balance of power between the states and the national government through his decisions. Once this is done, what the branches of the national government do between themselves will become inconsequential

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.

Hats off to you Larry.

I'm a conservative but I'd like to see the courts change in a way that probably differs from most. In pursuit of fairness at any cost, we're creating a society that's increasingly paralyzed by legal fear. Viewing every social choice through the narrow perspective of "individual rights" is a utopian fantasy that has produced a society scared of its shadows and mired in legal bickering.

Letting individuals use the power of the courts against others' free choices is a funny way to run a free society. That's what legislatures are for. Let us hope that this gentleman is a "strict constructionist".

i agree. why would someone of his intelligence and knowledge refer to our government as a constitutional democracy and not a constitutional republic?

call me a pessimist but there is something fishy about this whole thing.

everyone is going on about his "clean" record, maybe it is a bit too clean...

i'll hold off going off the deep end for this guy until after a few rulings, but by then it is too late of course.

hopefully it is just my pessimistic side coming out and i will be proven completely off base. his wife's well established pro-life stance does provide me with a bit of assurance on that single issue.

Judging by the uproar over Bush appointing the UN rep over the heads of lowly Senate, Bush is 139 behind. Clinton and other POTUS did not hesitate to appoint good people. Of course, in BC's case "Good" meant liberal, possibly even a liberal buying a job.
If Bush cannot be blocked from appointing, he should appoint until he's tired then do a few more days of appointing. The Dims are gonna hate him for breathing anyway so he might as well kick something. Bush should plow the Democrats fields DEEP, HARD, AND VERY OFTEN. Especially when appointing...they hate decent people.
Check out http://theworldtradecenter.blogspot.com/2005/08/placed-news-deep-within-as-on-page-37.html

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.