Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Re: John Roberts, Supreme Court Nominee
Special to FreeRepublic ^ | 29 July 2005 | John Armor (Congressman Billybob)

Posted on 07/20/2005 10:26:54 AM PDT by Congressman Billybob

Thousands of writers will produce millions of words about President Bush’s nomination of Judge John Roberts, Jr., to replace Justice Sandra Day O’Connor on the Supreme Court. Yet, there is a central fact that other writers will miss, most because they don’t 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 General’s 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 nation’s 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 General’s 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 what’s wrong with a majority of the Court, today.

Consider the Court’s 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 girl’s 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.

Let’s 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


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; US: Connecticut; US: Indiana; US: New York; US: North Carolina
KEYWORDS: hoganhartson; johnquincyadams; johnroberts; sandraoconnor; scotus; solicitorgeneral
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-157 next last
To: Congressman Billybob

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.


21 posted on 07/20/2005 10:41:03 AM PDT by stylin19a (In golf, some are long, I'm "Lama Long")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClancyJ
Jay Sekulow calls John Roberts, Jr. an "Exceptional" Choice Who Will Interpret the Constitution
22 posted on 07/20/2005 10:41:05 AM PDT by shield (The Greatest Scientific Discoveries of the Century Reveal God!!!! by Dr. H. Ross, Astrophysicist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

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.


23 posted on 07/20/2005 10:41:08 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

Well done.


24 posted on 07/20/2005 10:41:36 AM PDT by QwertyKPH (Non-profane tagline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rippin
We all know what happens when everyone agrees on every subject and all applaud those in power.
25 posted on 07/20/2005 10:41:37 AM PDT by cynicom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

Dobson has no qualms.


26 posted on 07/20/2005 10:42:45 AM PDT by traderrob6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

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.


27 posted on 07/20/2005 10:44:30 AM PDT by Paradox (Its a good thing that even when you dismiss the existence of God, he doesn't dismiss you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

Excellent analysis.

Judge Roberts will make an excellent Supreme Court justice.


28 posted on 07/20/2005 10:44:36 AM PDT by proud American in Canada
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cynicom

But do you have an opinion about this nominee?


29 posted on 07/20/2005 10:45:55 AM PDT by John Filson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

"We don’t 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


30 posted on 07/20/2005 10:46:09 AM PDT by BenLurkin (O beautiful for patriot dream - that sees beyond the years)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: traderrob6
Conservatives are unlike socialists, they do have differing opinions and make them known.

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.

31 posted on 07/20/2005 10:47:29 AM PDT by cynicom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: John Filson
Opinion??? No sir...Never heard of the gentleman before.

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.

32 posted on 07/20/2005 10:51:05 AM PDT by cynicom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
Glad to get your take on this pick, Congressman. If you are "for" Roberts, it says a lot. You are in a lot of good company, including Jay Sekulow and Mark Levin - among many others. It also says a lot that the likes of Schumer, Kennedy, Leahy and NARAL are on the other side and the DU is having a meltdown.

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!

33 posted on 07/20/2005 10:51:37 AM PDT by Gritty ("The Supreme Court has reconstituted itself as a permanent constitutional convention" - Don Feder)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cynicom

True, and conservatives sometimes capable of being FOS as I believe AC is this time.


34 posted on 07/20/2005 10:51:40 AM PDT by traderrob6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: ClancyJ

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.


35 posted on 07/20/2005 10:53:20 AM PDT by phasma proeliator (It's not always being fast or even accurate that counts... it's being willing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

Two thumbs up, John!


36 posted on 07/20/2005 10:55:01 AM PDT by Cyber Liberty (© 2005, Ravin' Lunatic since 4/98)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

bttt


37 posted on 07/20/2005 10:59:43 AM PDT by facedown (Armed in the Heartland)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #38 Removed by Moderator

To: Congressman Billybob
I hope those who understand HTML better than I can connect this appropriately in/to both those threads.

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".

39 posted on 07/20/2005 11:01:07 AM PDT by steveegg (Real torture is taking a ride with Sen Ted "Swimmer" Kennedy in a 1968 Oldsmobile off a short bridge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

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?


40 posted on 07/20/2005 11:01:28 AM PDT by Huck (Whatever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-157 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson