The Senate Judiciary Committee is to vote today on the confirmation of John Roberts Jr. as chief justice of the United States, and some members are understandably frustrated by what they haven’t heard from the nominee. We are, too. There’s much at stake here; you can never know too much.
But during last week’s hearings, what we did learn was reassuring. Roberts put himself forward as a practical jurist who would bring an open mind and legal rectitude to his lifetime assignment.
We favor Roberts’ confirmation and expect he will perform ably on the high court and as chief of the federal judiciary.
Roberts offered a sensible philosophy during three days’ questioning. He said he will put the law above personal beliefs and ideology. Too often he was coy and vague, guided by GOP handlers who made a political calculation as to how many questions he could brush off and still win confirmation.
He disarmed some skeptics by describing his respect for the precedent of law and applied his philosophy to Roe vs. Wade, the landmark case that allows states to permit abortions. Roe, he said, is settled law, and “well beyond that, it is settled as a precedent of the court entitled to respect under the principle of stare decisis,” a Latin term meaning to stand by a decision, or to respect precedent. “I do think that it is a jolt to the legal system when you overrule a precedent,” he said. “Precedent plays an important role in promoting stability and evenhandedness. … It is not enough that you may think the prior decision was wrongly decided.”
Roberts was asked often about voting and civil rights but failed to win over senators who worried that he was masquerading as a caring conservative while hiding an activist agenda. Business and Professional Women/ USA, a national women’s group, opposed his confirmation because of such uncertainties. They hoped he would distance himself from the commentary on those issues he wrote as a young lawyer in the Reagan administration.
Roberts has served as a judge with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals for only two years, so his judicial record is scant, and he tried explaining away the writings as reflecting the administration’s point of view, not necessarily his own. (Certainly the glibness and tartness of some passages were his, and we hope the years have softened a streak of bravado that doesn’t suit a chief justice.)
Overall, Roberts maneuvered around these questions in reasonable fashion, and we take him at his word when he says he will be a fair-minded leader of the judiciary who respects privacy rights and fundamental equalities.
At a time when courts are coming under attack by extreme voices like Pat Robertson and Rep. Tom DeLay, it will be up to Roberts as chief justice to protect the independence of the judiciary. We hope the Senate will give him the opportunity.
Many senators are looking past Roberts to the nomination of a successor for retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, a swing vote on key issues. Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter said he was looking for “someone who will promote stability so there are no sharp turns,” and ranking Democrat Patrick Leahy agreed. He surprised many by lining up for Roberts, but added, “I do not intend to lend my support to an effort by this president to move the Supreme Court and the law radically to the right.”
Bush met with key senators yesterday, and we hope he listens to advice that he pick a common-sense jurist and not an arch- conservative who will tilt the court to the right. Given the court’s lopsided white- male makeup, he should give due consideration to strong candidates who would add diversity to the court’s lineup.
In the meantime, we are reassured that when the court convenes in October, O’Connor will be on hand.
