The New Chief Justice

By 

Jay Sekulow

|
May 24, 2011

4 min read

ACLJ

A

A

October 24, 2005

With Chief Justice John Roberts now on the bench at the Supreme Court of the United States, its important to take a moment to step back and realize that in John Roberts we have a Chief Justice who not only understands the role of judges but also clearly understands the rule of law and remains committed to upholding the Constitution.

During his confirmation hearings, John Roberts addressed a variety of issues with integrity and candor.  And who can forget his compelling analogy viewing the role of judges to be that of an umpire meaning he believes the role of a judge or Justice is to fairly interpret and apply law, not legislate from the bench.  This conservative philosophy is both refreshing and welcome.

Lets not forget that John Roberts served as a law clerk for the late Chief Justice Rehnquist.  He admired the late Chief Justice very much.  And while Roberts told the Senate Judiciary Committee that he very much intended to be his own man he would approach cases similar to that of his mentor always keeping in mind the limited role of judges and the realization that those who serve on the bench should exhibit what Roberts called an appropriate modesty and humility.

Roberts was very clear, too, about the dangers of an activist judiciary.  Consider these words in a question and answer session with Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC):

The one threat I think to the rule of law is a tendency on behalf of some judges to take that legitimacy and that authority and extend it into areas where they're going beyond the interpretation of the Constitution, where they're making the law.The judges have to recognize that their role is a limited one. That is the basis of their legitimacy.The framers were not the sort of people, having fought a revolution to get the right of self-government, to sit down and say, Let's take all the difficult issues before us and let's have the judges decide them. That would have been the farthest thing from their mind.  The judges had the obligation to decide cases and the authority to interpret the Constitution because they had to decide cases. And they were going to decide those cases according to the law, not according to their personal preferences.

It is an important time for the country and the Supreme Court.  In this term alone, the high court is dealing with some of the most critical issues of our day assisted suicide, pro-life protests, parental notification for minors seeking abortions, and the constitutionality of the national ban on partial-birth abortion. 

Now more than ever, its important to have leadership at the high court that embraces the principles of our Founding Fathers.  With daily examples from the legal arena of judges who overstep their authority, its encouraging to know that our new Chief Justice subscribes to a conservative judicial philosophy that is consistent with what the Framers intended.

In looking at the role of judges, consider this testimony from Roberts before the Senate Judiciary Committee:

Judges have to have the courage to make the unpopular decisions when they have to. That sometimes involves striking down acts of Congress. That sometimes involves ruling that acts of that executive are unconstitutional. That is a requirement of the judicial oath. You have to have that courage, but you also have to have the self-restraint to recognize that your role is limited to interpreting the law and does not include making the law.

The country is fortunate to have such a skilled and talented Chief Justice at the high court.  Chief Justice John Roberts is serving this nation with honor and distinction.


Jay Sekulow is Chief Counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, a constitutional law firm and advocacy organization based in Washington, D.C.