Replies

John G. Roberts Biography

Some say John G. Roberts is a Rehnquist clone, sounds perfect to me.

Info from slate.com's biography of him: Age: 50 Graduated from: Harvard Law School. He clerked for: Judge Henry Friendly, Chief Justice William Rehnquist.

He used to be: associate counsel to the president for Ronald Reagan, deputy solicitor general for George H.W. Bush, partner at Hogan & Hartson. He's now: a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (appointed 2003). His confirmation battle: Roberts has been floated as a nominee who could win widespread support in the Senate. Not so likely. He hasn't been on the bench long enough for his judicial opinions to provide much ammunition for liberal opposition groups. But his record as a lawyer for the Reagan and first Bush administrations and in private practice is down-the-line conservative on key contested fronts, including abortion, separation of church and state, and environmental protection.

Civil Rights and Liberties For a unanimous panel, denied the weak civil rights claims of a 12-year-old girl who was arrested and handcuffed in a Washington, D.C., Metro station for eating a French fry. Roberts noted that "no one is very happy about the events that led to this litigation" and that the Metro authority had changed the policy that led to her arrest. (Hedgepeth v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 2004).

In private practice, wrote a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that Congress had failed to justify a Department of Transportation affirmative action program. (Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Mineta, 2001).

For Reagan, opposed a congressional effort—in the wake of the 1980 Supreme Court decision Mobile v. Bolden—to make it easier for minorities to successfully argue that their votes had been diluted under the Voting Rights Act.

Separation of Church and State For Bush I, co-authored a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that public high-school graduation programs could include religious ceremonies. The Supreme Court disagreed by a vote of 5-4. (Lee v. Weisman, 1992)

Environmental Protection and Property Rights Voted for rehearing in a case about whether a developer had to take down a fence so that the arroyo toad could move freely through its habitat. Roberts argued that the panel was wrong to rule against the developer because the regulations on behalf of the toad, promulgated under the Endangered Species Act, overstepped the federal government's power to regulate interstate commerce. At the end of his opinion, Roberts suggested that rehearing would allow the court to "consider alternative grounds" for protecting the toad that are "more consistent with Supreme Court precedent." (Rancho Viejo v. Nortion, 2003)

For Bush I, argued that environmental groups concerned about mining on public lands had not proved enough about the impact of the government's actions to give them standing to sue. The Supreme Court adopted this argument. (Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, 1990)

Criminal Law Joined a unanimous opinion ruling that a police officer who searched the trunk of a car without saying that he was looking for evidence of a crime (the standard for constitutionality) still conducted the search legally, because there was a reasonable basis to think contraband was in the trunk, regardless of whether the officer was thinking in those terms. (U.S. v. Brown, 2004)

Habeas Corpus Joined a unanimous opinion denying the claim of a prisoner who argued that by tightening parole rules in the middle of his sentence, the government subjected him to an unconstitutional after-the-fact punishment. The panel reversed its decision after a Supreme Court ruling directly contradicted it. (Fletcher v. District of Columbia, 2004)

Abortion For Bush I, successfully helped argue that doctors and clinics receiving federal funds may not talk to patients about abortion. (Rust v. Sullivan, 1991)

Judicial Philosophy Concurring in a decision allowing President Bush to halt suits by Americans against Iraq as the country rebuilds, Roberts called for deference to the executive and for a literal reading of the relevant statute. (Acree v. Republic of Iraq, 2004)

In an article written as a law student, argued that the phrase "just compensation" in the Fifth Amendment, which limits the government in the taking of private property, should be "informed by changing norms of justice." This sounds like a nod to liberal constitutional theory, but Rogers' alternative interpretation was more protective of property interests than Supreme Court law at the time.

Do you see anything here that makes you believe he is anything but a strict constructionalist, originalist and deep thinking conservative?

Agreed. In fact, his comments in Rancho Viejo v. Norton are rather disturbing. He dissented from the decision not because he thought the Endangered Species act was unconstitutional but only because they were basing it's constitutionality on the commerce clause. He wanted them to base it on other grounds. Ms. Coulter isn't saying this guy is conservative. She is saying that, in a sense, this was a "safe" choice because the guy has rather deliberately attempted to keep himself a blank slate for this purpose. He is not a Judge Alito or Judge Edith Jones, both of whom have, in speeches, rather strongly espoused originalism in the interpretation of the Constitution. Judge Roberts, to my knowledge, has not. And the assurance of conservative groups and the President just aren't reliable enough to base the nomination of a life-time appointment. It has since been discovered that Souter was downright deceptive in his White House dealings with President George H.W. Busy, protraying himself as solidly conservative. The fact that Judge Roberts has been so very careful not to forthrightly espouse originalism, and in fact, takes great care to distance himself from any controversy, does and should raise some red flags. But the nomination is made and we'll now have to see if we're stuck with an activist. If not, great. If so, it could be a very long and damaging 30 year wait to replace him.