Posted on 07/20/2005 10:26:54 AM PDT by Congressman Billybob
Thousands of writers will produce millions of words about President Bushs nomination of Judge John Roberts, Jr., to replace Justice Sandra Day OConnor on the Supreme Court. Yet, there is a central fact that other writers will miss, most because they dont know it, a handful because they fail to see its importance.
Start with this fact in all the biographies of Roberts. He argued 39 cases before the Supreme Court and won 25. Some came when he was in the Solicitor Generals office, where arguing before the Court is routine. But many of them came after he left the government to spend 21 years at Hogan & Hartson, a leading law firm.
For most of the nations history, ending a century ago, there was a group of lawyers who specialized in Supreme Court litigation. Some even put that on their letterheads. These private litigators who paralleled the Solicitor Generals office in handling most of the Supreme Court cases, no longer exists.
This group had a noble heritage. Former President John Quincy Adams was one of them. The most famous of his cases was The Amistad, seeking and winning vindication for the slaves who escaped their chains and took over that ship, and claimed their freedom when the ship reached Long Island.
What is the critical importance of John Roberts membership in this dying breed of Court specialists?
Look at the groups cranked up to oppose him. Or, sadly, look at some of the groups lined up for knee-jerk support. Most of these groups oppose or support Roberts because they believe he will, as a Justice, rule with / against them on a single, overriding issue.
Think about that. Most of those devoting energy and money to this, and future, Supreme Court nominations, are treating the Court as if it were a giant vending machine. Pull the correct lever, and out comes your preferred candy bar. That is exactly whats wrong with a majority of the Court, today.
Consider the Courts most recent and clearly abominable decision, the Kelo case. Five Justices ruled that New London, Connecticut, could seize private property not for public use as the Constitution says, but to turn that property over to another private owner to build a larger building and pay more taxes. Four Justices dissented strongly that the Court was rewriting and violating the Constitution.
Because his experience before the Court is greater than any other nominee in the history, when confirmed as Justice Roberts, he will not view the Court as a candy machine. He will not decide merely who wins this case. He will look at the Court as an institution, and at the Constitution as the most successful governing document in human history. He will not damage either one in the rush to get a desired result in the present case.
In short, the new Justice Roberts will be exactly what President Bush promised when he spoke of his possible nominations to the Court. Bush said he would choose Justices who would obey the Constitution rather than legislate from the bench.
Interestingly, this point can be demonstrated by a case decided by Judge Roberts that his opponents intend to use as a weapon against him. It was on a trivial matter, unless put it in this context: What is the role of a judge/Justice in the American form of government?
The Case of the French Fry involved a 12-year-old girl who was handcuffed and arrested for eating french fries on the Washington Metro. Self-evidently, the Metro police overreacted. They should have taken away the girls french fries, put her out of the station, and warned both her and her parents about obeying Metro rules in the future. But the issue before Judge Roberts was whether the constitutional rights of the girl had been violated. He ruled no.
This shows that Justice Roberts understands the critical difference between doing what he considers a good thing, and following the law including the Constitution. This is a fine appointment for the Court, the Constitution, and the nation.
Lets hear no more about moderation. Do you want a moderate police officer, who arrests half of the criminals? Do you want a moderate surgeon, who fixes half of the diseased hearts? Then, why seek a moderate Justice, who will obey the Constitution half of the time?
There will be no filibuster. There will only be bluster. Then solid confirmation of Justice Roberts to the Supreme Court.
About the Author: John Armor is a civil rights attorney with three-decades experience in the US Supreme Court, who lives in the Blue Ridge Mountains of North Carolina. John_Armor@aya.yale.edu
I'm still scratchin my head about Roberts' "Thank You" to Pres. Bush, where he described us twice as a democracy and specifically as a constitutional democracy.
I thought the title of the Ann Coulter piece didn't really capture Ann's thesis in that article. I heard her say "this is an unknown, I would have preferred a known."
It did not say that Roberts is an activist judge.
That said, let me point out that I also realize you did not accuse Coulter of opposing Roberts.
So far as Roberts being an originalist. There are some things that are left open-ended in the constitution. In the 5th amendment (cf. Kelo case), the taking of property should be only with "just compensation."
Whose opinion determines "just compensation?" Some things are open-ended.
Well done.
Dobson has no qualms.
EXCELLENT analysis. Thank you so much BillyBoy! Your contributions here on Free Republic are a great credit to the community. You are one of the few posters whose opinion I truly hold in high regard.
Excellent analysis.
Judge Roberts will make an excellent Supreme Court justice.
But do you have an opinion about this nominee?
"We dont know much about John Roberts. Stealth nominees have never turned out to be a pleasant surprise for conservatives. Never. Not ever... Oh, yeah...we know he's argued cases before the supreme court. big deal; so has Larry Flynt's attorney." - Ann Coulter
In selecting a justice....One has to note that the democrats NEVER put in place a justice that turns moderate or conservative. Yet the republicans have a nasty habit of doing the opposite. I suspect Coulter has that in mind.
I will say this however, Coulter has a rather large following in the American legal system and my guess is that she knows far more than me or most of the posters here.
Roberts is a good and solid pick and a political masterstroke which will likely also split off some of the few sane (sic?) Democrat members of Senate.
I can hardly wait for the demented mouth-frothing that will end up in anguished defeat as the Left finally sees they have lost The Big One.
I can also hardly wait for the next appointment, hopefully either Luttig or Brown. The Dems will have to take a number and get in line to get to the jump rail of the Golden Gate Bridge!
True, and conservatives sometimes capable of being FOS as I believe AC is this time.
Ann Coulter is a fur ball - at best a serious annoyance and at worst she'll choke you to death.... she does what she does for attention. I wish everyone would ignore her so that she goes away.
of course that's just My opinion. To each their own.
Two thumbs up, John!
bttt
You already got it into the Coulter thread, and this positively answers my question on the "philosophy behind the philosopfy" from there. How appropriate that the "French Fry Case" answer the "French Fry Test".
Weak arguments. I guess David Bois would be a terrific justice, based on your argument that appearing before the court makes you a good justice. Meanwhile, you accuse some groups of results-based knee jerk support, while appearing to lend your own knee jerk support. Who are you trying to criticise? Pro-lifers? Religious conservatives? What groups are offering knee jerk support? You didn't name any. Let's go. Name some names or else it's all just blather. Then you cite as the only actual case history in your piece a unanimous decision upholding a law about as serious as jaywalking. Upon that thin gruel you rest your case?
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.