John G. Roberts
John G. Roberts, 50, sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. He was nominated in 2003 by President George W. Bush. He was also nominated by the first President Bush, but he never received a Senate vote.
He has been a prominent GOP attorney in private practice in Washington and between 1989 and 1993 he was the Principal Deputy Solicitor General in the first Bush administration. Roberts attended Harvard College and Harvard Law School, clerked for Justice William H. Rehnquist on the Supreme Court and has argued frequently before the court.
Roberts' nomination to the appellate bench attracted support from both ends of the ideological spectrum.
Some 146 members of the D.C. Bar signed a letter urging his confirmation, including officials from the Clinton administration. The letter stated: "He is one of the very best and most highly respected appellate lawyers in the nation, with a deserved reputation as a brilliant writer and oral advocate. He is also a wonderful professional colleague both because of his enormous skills and because of his unquestioned integrity and fair-mindedness."
Walter E. Dellinger III, who served as solicitor general under former President Bill Clinton, told the Judiciary Committee that, “In my view . . . there is no better appellate advocate than John Roberts.”
Key Decisions and Writings:
Roberts is seen as a GOP heavyweight, but he's not seen as a "movement conservative" so some right-wing Republicans are skeptical of Roberts.
Roberts has a thin paper record, with few decisions on controversial issues that excite interest groups on the right and the left. He hasn't been on the Appeals Court very long, so there are very few decisions that shed light on his judicial philosophy. Jonathan Turley has called him the leading "blank slate candidate."
Abortion - Roberts has generally avoided weighing in on disputed social issues. Abortion rights groups, however, have pointed out that Roberts tried during his days as a lawyer in the first Bush administration to overturn Roe v. Wade. Roberts did help write a brief that stated "we continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled." Yet when pressed during his 2003 confirmation hearing for his own views on the matter, Roberts said: "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent." Liberals will argue that he now can vote to overturn that decision if confirmed.
States Rights - As a judge on the D.C. Circuit, Roberts wrote a dissenting opinion that suggested Congress might lack the power under the Constitution's Commerce Clause to regulate the treatment of a certain species of wildlife.
Basically, Roberts sides with many conservatives in ruling that the Commerce Clause does not give Congress free reign to regulate everything, regardless of how tenuous its connection to interstate commerce. This and similar decisions from the Rehnquist court have alarmed liberals, but the Commerce Clause has been stretched so far by the Supreme Court that it's hard to get too excited about some reasonable limitations placed on this power. Frankly, the recent medical marijuana decision by the Supreme Court demonstrates how far the Court will go sometimes to uphold Federal power, even in a case where individuals grow their own supply for medicinal purposes. Here, Roberts' approach seems more practical and consistent with the Constitution.
Profiles:
Washington Post profile
Slate profile
Harvard Crimson profile
http://www.orlandoreport.com/pr
ofiles/Supreme_Court/roberts.htm
Posted by Editor at July 19, 2005 07:39 PM
