Roberts -- A Promise Kept
After two days of intense and wide-ranging testimony, there can be no doubt that Judge John Roberts embraces the judicial philosophy articulated by President George W. Bush in two presidential campaigns and on the occasions where the President announced Judge Robertss nomination to be an Associate Justice and then Chief Justice. Likewise, Judge Roberts did not play the liberals game of prejudging cases that might come before him such as abortion. His testimony on the right to privacy mirrored that of Clarence Thomas during his Supreme Court confirmation hearing. Indeed, he refused to concede that there was a general privacy right, resisting Senator Schumer's effort to force the term. And, consistent with Justice Thomas's confirmation testimony, Judge Roberts would not embrace the non-marital right to privacy, stating simply that he had no quarrel with Eisenstadt.
Below are some examples of his judicial conservatism in his own words:
--- Roberts on Judicial Misuse of Foreign Law
As somebody said in another context, looking at foreign law for support is like looking out over a crowd and picking out your friends. You can find them. Theyre there. And that actually expands the discretion of the judge. It allows the judge to incorporate his or her own personal preferences, cloak them with the authority of precedent because theyre finding precedent in foreign law, and use that to determine the meaning of the Constitution. And I think thats a misuse of precedent-- not a correct use of precedent.
--- Roberts on Federalism
[T]he framers essential vision [is] that we are dealing with the federal system in which vast powers reside with the states and that the federal government is one of limited powers; broad in, obviously, particular areas, and broad under the Necessary and Proper Clause, but limited powers nonetheless.
--- Roberts on the Judicial Role
The People who framed our Constitution were jealous of their freedom and liberty. They would not have sat around and said, Lets take all the hard issues and give them over to the judges. That would have been the furthest thing from their minds. Now, judges have to decide hard questions when they come up in the context of a particular case. Thats their obligation. But they have to decide those questions according to the rule of law, not their own social preferences, not their policy views, not their personal preferences according to the rule of law.
[T]he role of the judge is limited; the judge is to decide the cases before them; theyre not to legislate; theyre not to execute the laws.
All judges are acutely aware of the fact that millions and millions of people have voted for you [Senators] and not one has voted for any of us [judges]. That means that you have the responsibility of representing the policy preferences of the people. Our job is a very different one. We have to consider cases that raise the question from time to time whether a particular piece of legislation is constitutional. And we have to limit ourselves in doing that to applying the law and not in any way substituting ourselves for the policy choices youve made.
Judges dont have a license to go out and decide, I think this is an injustice, and so Im going to do something to fix it. That type of judicial role, I think, is inconsistent with the role the Framers intended.
--- Roberts on Death Penalty Stall and Delay Tactics
And the question is, do you allow someone who has raised several claims over the years to suddenly say at the last minute somebody who just died was the person who committed the murder, and does that mean you start the trial all over again simply on the basis of that last- minute claim, or do you require more of a showing at that stage?
--- Roberts on the Rule of Law
Here was the