Posted on 02/03/2007 2:47:01 AM PST by Aussie Dasher
CHICAGO - Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. on Thursday told students and faculty at the Northwestern University School of Law that he believes the high court functions best when justices focus narrowly on the case at hand.
Justices run great risks when they go beyond the specifics of the case and attempt to set public policy, said Roberts, a strict constructionist confirmed in his post in September 2005.
"Judges should act like judges, not like statesmen," Roberts said in response to a student question following a lecture at the university.
The talk concluded the first of Roberts' two days as Howard J. Trienens Visiting Judicial Scholar at Northwestern. He noted that the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist, for whom he served as clerk, was the first jurist to participate in the program.
Roberts' lecture focused on four key former chief justices: John Jay, John Marshall, William Howard Taft, and Charles Evans Hughes.
Roberts, 52, noted that Jay - the first chief justice - was appointed at age 43 and resigned after less than six years, complaining of a lack of challenge. He said Jay's one great contribution to the high court came when he declined reappointment several years later, which led to the appointment of Marshall, whom Roberts called the greatest justice to hold the post.
Roberts praised Taft, a former president, with being the most skilled judicial administrator in Supreme Court history. He said Taft's successor, Hughes, "defended the Supreme Court in the most serious attack in its history," which he defined as President Franklin D. Roosevelt's failed 1937 "court-packing" plan to appoint additional justices favorable to his New Deal agenda.
But when asked by a student which of his predecessors he would most like to sit down and talk with, Roberts surprised many in the auditorium by naming Roger Brooke Taney, the much maligned chief justice who served from 1836 to 1864.
Taney, who succeeded Marshall, is remembered almost exclusively as author of the Dredd Scott vs. Sandford decision of 1857, which Roberts called "disastrous."
In that ruling, Taney wrote for the majority in declaring that all people of African ancestry, whether slave or free, were not and never could become U.S. citizens. The decision also declared the 1820 Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, thus permitting slavery in all federal territories.
"Yes, I'd like to sit down and talk with Taney," Roberts said. "I'd like to sit down with him before he wrote that ruling and try to talk him out of it."
Roberts called Dredd Scott a prime example of what can happen when a justice widens the focus too far.
"Taney thought he was settling the issue of slavery," Roberts said. "Instead, he accelerated the course toward Civil War."
And hoping that Ruth Bader Ginsburg has a massive stroke soon would be in very bad taste.
But I do it anyway.
L
His vote is important but his influence on another generation of lawyers and future judges is priceless.
How about a massive conversion of the heart?
I reckon a stroke would be quicker...
PBS has been showing a documentary on the history of the Supreme Court this week. Roberts was one of the primary talking heads on the show, and man, he was simply awesome to listen to! A true scholar in every way and very engaging! I'm glad he is where he is.
An excellent point. Hopefully, Roberts will inspire young attorneys and judges-to-be with a conservative and constructionist philosophy that they can keep with them throughout their careers.
Bush has made a lot of bad moves. Roberts and Alito are not one of them. When that old fart Stevens decides to leave, that will be our next fight.
"Roberts and Alito are not one of them. When that old fart Stevens decides to leave, that will be our next fight."
True. Justices Roberts and Alito have the potential to have the most lasting impact of the Bush Administration. I just pray that there will be more openings on the court for President Bush to fill.
"Roberts and Alito are not one of them. When that old fart Stevens decides to leave, that will be our next fight."
True. Justices Roberts and Alito have the potential to have the most lasting impact of the Bush Administration. I just pray that there will be more openings on the court for President Bush to fill.
I agree. I believe the President will leave two major legacies, the WOT and judges.
When he discussed "activist courts" and all, it sounded like he was describing the Ninth District Court of Appeals. Talk about painting a broad picture with a little brush...those 9th guys are way out of whack with the Supremes, and get 75% of their rulings reversed.
That seems unlikely. The Supreme Court grants certiorari on only a small percentage of the cases that come before it for review.
Your Honor, could you send a memo out to the 9 th Circuit Court of Appeals, and to the other liberal Judges? This is really something they need to hear!
I like him! And to think Bush almost gave us Harriett Myers instead of Roberts. THAT'S scary!
Rumor has it that Stevens will retire this year.
Good catch. Only a small percentage of any Circuit's cases even get appealed and only a fraction of those get heard by SCOTUS. Geezerwheezer probably intended the valid point that 9th Circuit has by far the highest rate of its reviewed cases overturned, don't have that figure top of my head, but it is stunning in comparison to any other Circuit.
Another good reason we should have broken the 9th, by far the largest jurisdiction, in half while we still had a Congressional majority.
Over 75% of the cases heard by SCOTUS from the 9th are reversed, and the 9th is, by far, the most reversed Court of Appeals in the USA. I think you may have misunderstood what I wrote.
There's no misunderstanding "get 75% of their rulings reversed." Read literally, it is quite untrue. The Supreme Court generally grants certiorari only when there is a split amongst the circuits, or (more rarely) all the circuits fundamentally misread the Supreme Court. Only a very small percentage of cases which are appealed to the Supreme Court make it onto its docket - approximately 7500 cert. petitions are sent to the Supreme Court each year; only about 100 or 150 are ever granted. That is, of course, far too small a sample to use to impugn the 9th Circuit. The Supreme Court chooses only the more knife-edge cases which the Circuits couldn't resolve on their own.
Whatever floats your boat.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.