CNS News - Senate Judiciary Committee Approves John Roberts for Chief Justice

September 23, 2005
by Melanie Hunter, Senior Editor

(CNSNews.com) - In a vote of 13 to 5, the Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday voted to confirm Supreme Court chief justice nominee John Roberts.

All 10 Republicans voted to approve Roberts, while three Democrats joined them -- the ranking Democrat, Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, and Wisconsin Sens. Herb Kohl and Russ Feingold.

Conservatives were quick to praise the committee's vote.

"The vote by the Judiciary Committee reflects the fact that John Roberts is an exceptional nominee with a conservative judicial philosophy -- a philosophy that represents mainstream America," Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, said in a statement.

"It's encouraging that several Democrats recognized his talents and capabilities by voting for his confirmation. At the same time, though, it's unfortunate that others chose to politicize a confirmation process by trying to turn it into some sort of election," said Sekulow.

"It's now up to the full Senate to move swiftly to confirm John Roberts so he can assume his duties and responsibilities as chief justice when the Supreme Court begins its new term in a matter of weeks. We call on the Senate to confirm John Roberts without delay," added Sekulow.

The full Senate will take up the Roberts nomination on Monday.

"Judge Roberts deserves overwhelming bi-partisan confirmation by the Senate," said Jan LaRue, Concerned Women for America's chief counsel, in a statement. "Only those willing to jump off a political cliff by joining hands with the die-hard abortion, gay rights and environmental groups can be expected to oppose this supremely qualified nominee."

With Roberts' final confirmation a few days away, attention has already turned to who President Bush will nominate to replace Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

"The president should name the best-qualified and proven constitutionalist to replace O'Connor as soon as Judge Roberts is confirmed, regardless of sex, race or ethnicity," LaRue said. "The American people will decide the consequences of partisan politicians trying to intimidate the president into surrendering his constitutional duty."

Meanwhile, the Alliance for Justice, which lobbied against Roberts, applauded the five Democrats who voted "no" on the nomination, adding that "a majority of the Judiciary Committee failed to stand up for the rights and protections" of all Americans.

During the committee hearings, Roberts "gave no indication that he would stand up for our rights and freedoms as he chose to evade questions and refused to distance himself from the disconcerting positions he embraced -- especially on civil rights and women's rights -- while serving in the Reagan and first Bush administrations," said the group's president, Nan Aron.

"By failing to allay the concerns his record raised prior to the hearings, Judge Roberts simply has not met the heavy burden of proving that he warrants a lifetime appointment to the most powerful judgeship in the country," Aron said.

Aron accused Roberts of supporting the "weakening" of "women's rights and civil rights laws" and advocating the "cutting back" of "the vital role of our courts in enforcing legal protections."

Roberts "applauded recent judicial efforts to restrict the ability of the people's democratically elected representatives in Congress to enact crucial, nationwide worker, anti-discrimination and environmental safeguards while at the same time, he has favored expanding presidential power," Aron said.

"If transformed into the law of the land, Judge Roberts' legal views could produce a government with less power to protect ordinary people and give ordinary people less power to protect themselves from abuse by government and other powerful interests," added Aron.

Aron accused the White House of choosing "secrecy over transparency" by refusing to release the memos during Roberts' time in the solicitor general's office.

"These documents would have shed critical light on Judge Roberts' record and judicial philosophy. But rather than respecting the co-equal role of the Senate in the confirmation process, the White House withheld vital information," said Aron.

Aron warned the Bush administration and the Senate to "proceed with deliberation rather than haste" with the next nomination to replace O'Connor. "They must ensure that the next nominee to our nation's highest court will embrace the protection, rather than the restriction, of our rights and freedoms."

Americans United for Separation of Church and State also criticized the committee's vote, saying the nation needs a chief justice "who understands and appreciates the religious diversity of the country," one "who realizes that separation of church and state is the basis for our religious freedom."

"That's not John Roberts. He's the wrong candidate for the job," said Barry Lynn, executive director for Americans United. He urged the full Senate to reject the nomination, adding, "Chief Justice John Roberts is a risk our nation simply can't afford to take."

An abortion rights group, the National Abortion Federation, was "extremely concerned" with the committee's vote to approve the nomination and accused the panel of putting "politics ahead of protecting women's lives and health."

"Roberts' weak assurances that he brings 'no ideology' and 'no agenda' to the court are similar to assurances made previously by other Supreme Court justices. Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, Bush's proclaimed model judges, similarly promised in their hearings to bring no agenda to the court," said Vicki Saporta, president and CEO of NAF.

"Those promises, however, did nothing to stop Thomas and Scalia from repeatedly voting against women's rights, women's reproductive freedom, and civil rights once they were confirmed," Saporta said in a statement.