Hearing Update: John Roberts Exhibits Integrity and Candor

 

We are now halfway through the Roberts confirmation hearings.  Here are some general observations:

1.                  John Roberts has demonstrated his commitment to the idea that Supreme Court Justices should interpret the law rather than make it up or legislate from the bench. This is apparent from his consistent discussion of the importance of humility and modesty in the enterprise of judging.  On several occasions, Judge Roberts contrasted the judicial role with policymaking activity.

 

2.         Judge Roberts steadfastly refused to answer questions that would require him to prejudge issues that could well come before the Court. He drew a very clear and practical line--cases such as Marbury or Brown that are settled beyond a doubt can be discussed, but cases such as Roe that present emerging or developing issues  are still very much in play.  Despite intense questioning, for example, Judge John Roberts properly refused to provide any hints, predictions, or forecasts on how he might rule on privacy and abortion issues.

 

3.         Consistent with the testimony of Clarence Thomas and other past nominees, Judge Roberts acknowledged that there is a right of privacy between a married man and woman respecting contraception.  But, importantly, he refused to draw any connection between this privacy interest and Roe v. Wade, and stated explicitly that agreeing with the holding in Griswold is a very different matter than speaking to that cases future ramifications.

 

4.         Judge Roberts approached the issue of binding precedent with integrity and candor, making clear that every prior decision is entitled to respect but that there are times when even creating a jolt in the legal system by reversing precedent might be appropriate.

 

5.         Judge Roberts was elegant and clear in defending his work as a Reagan Administration official. He correctly explained how much of his work was for the advancement of the President's policy directives. But, importantly, Judge Roberts made no apologies--on several occasions, he explained why his work and the Administration's positions were consistent with the law; and, in at least three instances, he corrected misrepresentations by Democrat Senators respecting Reagan Administration policy.

Judge Robertss approach to the law is right on point.  The dialogue of the last two days clearly demonstrates for the country the fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives in addressing the role of the court.  Judge Roberts has made it very clear to liberals on the committee that he views 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 refreshing and welcome and what many of us have long fought for.