What happened
President Bush this week took a major step toward putting a conservative stamp on the U.S. Supreme Court by nominating federal appeals court Judge John Roberts to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Bush said he picked Roberts for his 'œexperience, wisdom, fairness, and civility,' and politicians from both parties praised the nominee for his impeccable credentials. Roberts graduated Harvard in three years, served as a counsel for two Republican administrations, and has argued 39 cases before the Supreme Court for both the government and private clients. Bush appointed Roberts a federal appeals judge in 2003.
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.
What the editorials said
What an inspired choice, said the Denver Rocky Mountain News. As he promised, Bush selected a brilliant lawyer who doesn't believe judges should inject their political views into the law. Liberal interest groups may still attempt to 'œBork' Roberts by painting him as a dangerous extremist. But if the Senate can't 'œbuckle down' and confirm Roberts before the court's fall term starts in October, 'œit will amount to a national scandal.'
Not so fast, said the Los Angeles Times. 'œIt is entirely appropriate for the Senate to probe a nominee's judicial philosophy.' Roberts recently voted to uphold Bush's plan to hold military trials for suspected terrorists at Guantánamo, so Democrats have a right to ask how far he thinks we should bend basic rights in the name of fighting terrorism. And if Roberts really believes that Roe v. Wade was 'œwrongly decided and should be overruled,' as he wrote in 1991, he shouldn't count on a 'œsmooth confirmation.'
What the columnists said
What more could the nation want in a Supreme Court justice? said Shannen Coffin in National Review Online. Roberts is 'œa brilliant lawyer' who is 'œrespected on both sides of the aisle.' His selection won't please liberals who expect judges to make law of every social change 'œon the left's agenda,' but they won't have a leg to stand on if they try to block this nomination.
Unless, of course, they bring up how Roberts has trampled on the Geneva Conventions, said Bruce Shapiro in TheNation.com. Just last week, Roberts and two other Republican appointees on the D.C. Court of Appeals issued a ruling, 'œin scathing language,' giving the president authority to convene military trials for terror suspects at Guantánamo Bay. With that ruling, Roberts passed the only litmus test that really matters with Bush these days. The courts have been challenging Bush's insistence that the war on terror takes precedence over the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions. So 'œthe Bush administration badly needs a friend like Roberts on the Supreme Court.'
Actually, if anyone should be upset about this nomination, said Fred Barnes in The Weekly Standard, it should be social conservatives. They wanted a carbon copy of Scalia, someone 'œwith a streak of daring' willing to overturn previous court rulings that were not faithful to the Constitution. Instead, Bush gave his most ardent supporters 'œan establishment conservative' who should breeze to confirmation but leave them exactly where they started'”two votes short of overturning Roe v. Wade. Roberts is a 'œsafe' pick who will 'œnudge the court to the right''”nothing more.
What next?
-
Israel: Losing the American publicFeature A recent poll finds American support for Israel's military action in Gaza has fallen from 50% to 32%
-
Unmaking AmericansFeature Trump is threatening to revoke the citizenship of foreign-born Americans. Could he do that?
-
EPA: A bonfire of climate change regulationsFeature The Environmental Protection Agency wants to roll back its 'endangerment finding,' a ruling that lets the agency regulate carbon emissions
-
NSA surveillance ruled unconstitutionalfeature A federal judge ruled that the National Security Agency's mass collection of domestic phone data “almost certainly” violates the Constitution.
-
The gun debate one year after Newtown
feature The first anniversary of the school shootings in Newtown reignited the debate over gun control, as another school shooting occurred in Colorado.
-
A gun revolt in Colorado
feature Two Colorado Democrats who helped push through tough new gun-control laws were ousted in a historic recall vote.
-
The battle over voter ID laws
feature The Obama administration is challenging the right of Texas to enforce rigorous new voting restrictions.
-
Stricter affirmative action
feature The Supreme Court raised the bar for considering race in university admissions.
-
Voting Rights Act gutted
feature The Supreme Court struck down a core component of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
-
A turning point on gay marriage
feature The Supreme Court struck a historic blow in favor of gay rights.
-
Court approves DNA swabs
feature The Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that police are justified in taking DNA samples from anyone who’s arrested.