President Bush nominated 50-year old John Roberts Jr., a federal
appellate judge, to the one vacant seat on the United States
Supreme Court Tuesday evening, a decision which many think will tip
the court just a little more to the right.
In Bush’s nationally broadcast speech in which Roberts was
officially nominated, the president’s confidence in the
federal judge was clear.
“John Roberts has devoted his entire professional life to
the cause of justice,” Bush said at the White House,
“and is widely admired for his intellect his sound judgment
and his personal decency.”
The next step for Roberts is a Senate confirmation hearing, and
he will likely be thoroughly questioned by senators trying to
ascertain his stance on issues such as abortion, affirmative
action, state’s rights and the death penalty.
But, many legal and political analysts predict Roberts’
background in law and Washington politics, and the fact that he has
enjoyed bipartisan support in the past, will lead to a fairly
smooth confirmation.
If confirmed, Roberts would replace retiring Justice Sandra Day
O’Connor, known as a swing vote on a court when it faced
divisive issues.
At the prime-time announcement, Roberts said he was honored to
be nominated to an institution which he thinks of as pivotal to a
functioning democracy.
Referring to times he has argued before the Supreme Court as a
lawyer, Roberts said, “I always got a lump in my throat
whenever I walked up those marble steps to argue a case before the
court, and I don’t think it was just from the
nerves.”
Though critics of Roberts say he has only served on the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia for two years ““
a post to which Bush nominated him in 2003 ““ his legal
experience includes arguing 39 cases in front of the Supreme Court,
a successful private practice and a clerkship under then-Associate
Justice William Rehnquist.
A graduate of both Harvard University and the Harvard Law
School, Roberts has often been thought of as a Washington insider,
and many consider him to have a solid background of working with
the White House and Justice Department.
Roberts’ confirmation to the appellate court in 2003
garnered support from both liberals and conservatives, when 126
members of the District of Columbia Bar, including former Clinton
administration officials, signed a letter urging his confirmation.
But, there is doubt over how Roberts may act as a Supreme Court
justice.
Citing Roberts experience working under Rehnquist, legal experts
predict that the apple may not fall far from the tree.
“He’s a protege of William Rehnquist and I suspect
he shares a lot of his views,” UCLA law professor Grant
Nelson said.
“He’s been consistently conservative … He’s
a very, very bright guy who is likely to face many different
challenges in the future. Who knows what his take will be?”
UCLA law professor Jonathan Varat said.
One issue members of the Senate are likely to take up at
Robert’s confirmation hearing is his past stance on
abortion.
Abortion rights groups point to a 1990 brief Roberts co-wrote as
deputy solicitor general under the former President Bush, in which
he suggested the landmark decision legalizing abortion, Roe v.
Wade, be overturned.
“The court’s decision in Roe that there is a
fundamental right to an abortion … find no support in the text,
structure or history of the Constitution,” the brief
said.
Yet in Roberts’ 2003 confirmation hearing to the appellate
court, Roberts told senators he intended to follow legal
precedent.
“Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land … There is
nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and
faithfully applying that precedent,” he said.
Legal experts say justices can be both loyal to their past
decisions as well as surprisingly dissident.
“There are a few salient issues that people focus on all
the time that make up a small percentage of the work they do …
Not infrequently, either, you’ll get unusual line-ups because
the case or the issues has a new wrinkle in it,” Varat
said.
But, legal experts are also quick to note that Roberts is not
likely to be a radical.
“It would be hard to characterize him as a radical
right-winger. No one seriously thinks of him as a radical,
that’s not his style … a person who says “˜I still get
a lump in my throat,’ has a lot of reverence for the
institution,” Nelson said, who also noted that Roberts has
probably argued as many cases in front of the Supreme Court as any
other living person.
Nelson said Roberts is going to be a hard nominee for opponents
to defeat since he doesn’t have a large trail of court
decisions, and the last time he was confirmed to the appellate
court he received support from both sides of the ideological
spectrum.
“He’s going to be extremely difficult to defeat …
unless of course they find dirt. And not the ideological kind, but
matters that go to character or finances. That being said, I think
he’s going to be confirmed,” Nelson said.
With reports from Bruin wire services.