The Internet searches went into overdrive yesterday as public policy mavens scrambled to read up on John G. Roberts Jr., the appeals judge who has been tapped by President Bush to fill the first U.S. Supreme Court vacancy in the 21st century.
Roberts has lived a relatively public work life, serving as a clerk to Chief Justice William Rehnquist, as an attorney in the office of the U.S. Solicitor General under the first President Bush and as a lawyer at a blue-chip Washington law firm.
After serving just two years on the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, Roberts’ record as a judge reveals little. It is a reality that will make some people nervous, but it could very well ease his path in the Senate, where confirmation hearings will take place after Labor Day.
Roberts has served on the bench since 2003, when he was confirmed by a voice vote in the Senate. In a vote of the Judiciary Committee, three liberal Democrats opposed him, feeling that he hadn’t been sufficiently forthcoming in addressing their questions. Barring some new revelation or an inept appearance in his upcoming Senate hearings, opponents will have a difficult time blocking his nomination.
Detractors worry that the conservative Roberts will vote to criminalize abortion and in other ways steer the court away from the middle course set by Sandra Day O’Connor, whose retirement led to his nomination.
Analysts are studying a brief he co-authored while in the solicitor general’s office in 1990 that argued Roe vs. Wade, which legalized abortion, “was wrongly decided and should be overruled.” In his 2003 confirmation hearings, asked about his position on abortion, Roberts called Roe v. Wade “the settled law of the land,” and said, “There’s nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent.” Bizarrely, opponents of Roe vs. Wade have been circulating that quote in an effort to quiet any foreboding among moderates that Roberts will, one day, vote to overturn the law that he can for now faithfully apply.
As a judge, one of Roberts’ most notable decisions suggests he follows the conservative notion of restricting federal government powers in favor of leaving policymaking authority with the states.
Roberts is polished and charming, with many admirers, and he displayed instinctive humility Tuesday when accepting the nomination. That prompted Wade Henderson of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights to wonder whether he is “a hard-nosed extremist with a soft conservative facade,” and whether Bush had nominated “a stealth candidate.” But how stealthy can he be with the entire conservative establishment on their feet cheering his appointment?
Advocates on both sides of the partisan divide will go to school on Roberts over the coming weeks and months, and his “stealth” will be tested in hearings this fall. It is critical as the Senate takes up its responsibilities to advise and consent that Roberts be forthcoming about his views.
