John Roberts has now been confirmed as chief justice of the Supreme Court, replacing the legal giant William Rehnquist. But it still remains to be seen whether John Roberts is really the best man to fill those legendary Constitutional shoes.
Despite the partisan results of the Senate confirmation vote—every Republican senator voted for Roberts, while the Democrats split down the middle, 23-22—there is significant disagreement about what this will mean in the long run.
The dissenting Dems included some of the most liberal members of Congress: Kennedy, Kerry, Feinstein, Boxer, Obama and, of course, Hillary Clinton. Thus the “good” conservatives appear to have won and the “bad” liberals have lost.
But that current public perception may prove to be just smoke and mirrors in the future. Some of the conservative senators who voted for Roberts did so despite reservations, believing that the president’s next nominee would be a clear conservative. Even before the vote, some astute legal observers were predicting that Roberts’ replacement of Rehnquist would actually result in a more liberal slant for the Court. In his Washington Times article of September 20, Bruce Fein, a constitutional lawyer who once worked with Roberts at the Justice Department, offered an in-depth analysis of the fundamental differences Roberts and Rehnquist.
“Compared with the late Chief Justice Rehnquist, [Roberts] is more accommodating to First Amendment rights of free speech and association, Fourth Amendment privacy interests, and the power of Congress to encroach on traditional state prerogatives under the Commerce Clause. Judge Roberts also is less inclined to disturb liberal Supreme Court precedents,” Fein observed.
“In sum, President Bush’s shifting of Judge Roberts from the liberal seat of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor to Rehnquist’s conservative chair marked a nontrivial ideological victory for Democrats and a doctrinal setback for Republicans.”
Just when conservatives were set to do a victory dance in the end zone, in came another penalty flag threatening to push their progress back another 15 yards.
Some serious conservatives questioned Roberts’ appointment beginning back in July, including columnist Ann Coulter. “We don’t know much about John Roberts,” Coulter opined. “Stealth nominees have never turned out to be a pleasant surprise for conservatives. Not ever.”
While Focus on the Family, the Christian Coalition, and the American Center for Law and Justice were all fawning over Roberts and praising President Bush for appointing him, longtime conservative icon Howard Phillips defied the crowd and blasted Roberts for doing pro bono work for homosexual activists in the landmark 1993 Romer v. Evans case in Colorado.
“Judge Roberts apparently had no moral objection to using his skills to advance the homosexual agenda,” Phillips noted. “It suggests an absence of understanding by Mr. Roberts that homosexual conduct is sinful and ought to be discouraged.
“We do not need another Anthony Kennedy, Sandra Day O’Connor, or David Souter,” concluded Phillips.
To which I say: AMEN.
The fact is that we knew little about John Roberts’ judicial temperament when he was nominated. Much of what we did learn during his hearings was of no consolation. Particularly disturbing was his assertion that as a judge, he will not be guided by the moral precepts of his Roman Catholic faith. “My faith and my religious beliefs do not play a role,” he testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
He also affirmed his affection for precedents, such as the Roe v. Wade ruling that made abortion-on-demand the law of the land. He agrees with those constitutional &ld
Despite the partisan results of the Senate confirmation vote—every Republican senator voted for Roberts, while the Democrats split down the middle, 23-22—there is significant disagreement about what this will mean in the long run.
The dissenting Dems included some of the most liberal members of Congress: Kennedy, Kerry, Feinstein, Boxer, Obama and, of course, Hillary Clinton. Thus the “good” conservatives appear to have won and the “bad” liberals have lost.
But that current public perception may prove to be just smoke and mirrors in the future. Some of the conservative senators who voted for Roberts did so despite reservations, believing that the president’s next nominee would be a clear conservative. Even before the vote, some astute legal observers were predicting that Roberts’ replacement of Rehnquist would actually result in a more liberal slant for the Court. In his Washington Times article of September 20, Bruce Fein, a constitutional lawyer who once worked with Roberts at the Justice Department, offered an in-depth analysis of the fundamental differences Roberts and Rehnquist.
“Compared with the late Chief Justice Rehnquist, [Roberts] is more accommodating to First Amendment rights of free speech and association, Fourth Amendment privacy interests, and the power of Congress to encroach on traditional state prerogatives under the Commerce Clause. Judge Roberts also is less inclined to disturb liberal Supreme Court precedents,” Fein observed.
“In sum, President Bush’s shifting of Judge Roberts from the liberal seat of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor to Rehnquist’s conservative chair marked a nontrivial ideological victory for Democrats and a doctrinal setback for Republicans.”
Just when conservatives were set to do a victory dance in the end zone, in came another penalty flag threatening to push their progress back another 15 yards.
Some serious conservatives questioned Roberts’ appointment beginning back in July, including columnist Ann Coulter. “We don’t know much about John Roberts,” Coulter opined. “Stealth nominees have never turned out to be a pleasant surprise for conservatives. Not ever.”
While Focus on the Family, the Christian Coalition, and the American Center for Law and Justice were all fawning over Roberts and praising President Bush for appointing him, longtime conservative icon Howard Phillips defied the crowd and blasted Roberts for doing pro bono work for homosexual activists in the landmark 1993 Romer v. Evans case in Colorado.
“Judge Roberts apparently had no moral objection to using his skills to advance the homosexual agenda,” Phillips noted. “It suggests an absence of understanding by Mr. Roberts that homosexual conduct is sinful and ought to be discouraged.
“We do not need another Anthony Kennedy, Sandra Day O’Connor, or David Souter,” concluded Phillips.
To which I say: AMEN.
The fact is that we knew little about John Roberts’ judicial temperament when he was nominated. Much of what we did learn during his hearings was of no consolation. Particularly disturbing was his assertion that as a judge, he will not be guided by the moral precepts of his Roman Catholic faith. “My faith and my religious beliefs do not play a role,” he testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
He also affirmed his affection for precedents, such as the Roe v. Wade ruling that made abortion-on-demand the law of the land. He agrees with those constitutional &ld
