John Roberts
How will he steer the Supreme Court?
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.'
It's not good enough for us conservatives, either, said Jeff Jacoby in The Boston Globe. As chief justice, Roberts would wield enormous power'”more than any senator, more perhaps than any president. In ruling on such matters as the death penalty, same-sex marriage, affirmative action, and abortion, he would shape the nation's political and social landscape for decades to come. Yet he offered nothing but 'œplatitudes' about the most critical legal issues of our times. 'œIf nominees are permitted to keep their views to themselves, how can the people decide whether they want them on the bench?'
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.
With Roberts certain to be confirmed by the Republican majority, said Nina Easton and Rick Klein, also in the Globe, Democrats face a true dilemma. Do they follow Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid's lead and vote against Roberts? A 'œno' vote would please the party's liberal base'”and send a warning to Bush not to nominate an even more conservative jurist for the other Supreme Court vacancy. The danger for Democrats is that voting against such a qualified nominee could make them seem petty and unreasonable. And it would be, said the Los Angeles Times in an editorial. In the 1990s, Republicans swallowed hard and voted for Bill Clinton's well-qualified liberal nominees, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. Roberts deserves a 'œyes' vote on his merits.
Charles Krauthammer
The Washington Post
Roe v. Wade
Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
Roe
-
How AI is offering journalists protection from persecution in Venezuela
Under the Radar Media organisations launch news show hosted by AI-generated avatars to 'shelter their real-life journalists'
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
Today's political cartoons - November 17, 2024
Cartoons Sunday's cartoons - Trump turkey, melting media, and more
By The Week US Published
-
5 contentious cartoons about Matt Gaetz's AG nomination
Cartoons Artists take on ethical uncertainty, offensive justice, and more
By The Week US Published
-
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.
By The Week Staff Last updated
-
Gun control: Has Newtown already been forgotten?
feature Three months after Newtown, meaningful gun-control legislation seems doomed to failure.
By The Week Staff Last updated
-
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.
By The Week Staff Last updated
-
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.
By The Week Staff Last updated
-
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.
By The Week Staff Last updated
-
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.
By The Week Staff Last updated
-
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.
By The Week Staff Last updated
-
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.
By The Week Staff Last updated