We have just seen the next chief justice of the United States, said David Broder in The Washington Post, and he's 'œno conservative ideologue.' In four days of confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week, John Roberts showed himself to be brilliant, eminently reasonable, and 'œridiculously well-equipped' to lead the nation's highest court. Roberts displayed a first-rate knowledge of the law and Supreme Court precedent, and a thorough understanding of 'œwhat it means to be a judge.' Judges, he said, are constitutional umpires, 'œnot individuals promoting their own particular views.' In defusing hostile questions with his 'œquick wit,' Roberts demonstrated that his temperament is perfect, too. This 'œextraordinary' jurist's only problem is that he's 'œset a standard so high' that President Bush will be hard-pressed to find another like him.
Roberts may have proven he's a clever lawyer, said The New York Times in an editorial, but Democrats should still vote against him. Throughout his questioning, Roberts 'œdodged and weaved' around such divisive matters as church-state separation, gay rights, and abortion. He was worryingly evasive when Democratic senators confronted him with memos he wrote as a lawyer in the first Bush and Reagan administrations, in which he derisively called Hispanic immigrants 'œillegal amigos,' and dismissed the 'œso-called right to privacy' and equal opportunity for women. Roberts claimed these were the opinions of a younger man, and asked the Senate'”and the nation'”to take his word that he's no right-wing ideologue. Well, 'œthat just isn't good enough.'
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
-
Will California's EV mandate survive Trump, SCOTUS challenge?Today's Big Question The Golden State's climate goal faces big obstacles
-
'Underneath the noise, however, there’s an existential crisis'Instant Opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
-
2024: the year of distrust in scienceIn the Spotlight Science and politics do not seem to mix
-
Voting: Should ex-felons regain the right to cast ballots?feature Attorney General Eric Holder denounced state laws that restrict convicted felons from voting after they’re released from jail.
-
Gun control: Has Newtown already been forgotten?
feature Three months after Newtown, meaningful gun-control legislation seems doomed to failure.
-
Gay marriage: How will the Supreme Court rule?
feature In March, the court will consider challenges to the constitutionality of both the Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Proposition 8.
-
The Supreme Court: Did Obama try to bully the justices?
feature The president's public caution to the Supreme Court unleashed a flurry of opinion.
-
Health care: Will the Supreme Court judge fairly?
feature Before last week’s Supreme Court hearings, most legal experts assumed the health-care law would be upheld.
-
Obama: Did his appointments violate the Constitution?
feature The President's recess appointments to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the National Labor Relations Board have raised the ire of Republicans, who say the Senate was not really in recess.
-
The death penalty: Was an innocent man executed?
feature In Georgia, Troy Davis was executed for the 1989 shooting of an off-duty policeman, Mark MacPhail, in spite of recanted testimony.
-
Guns: Would tougher laws have prevented a massacre?
feature Since Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert Kennedy were gunned down in 1968, more than a million Americans have died of gunshots, in crimes, accidents, and suicides.