WASHINGTON (ABP) — President Bush nominated a strong conservative, federal appellate judge John Roberts, to replace retiring moderate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court July 19.
After the announcement, activists on both sides of the nation's cultural debates agreed that the move signaled Bush's intent to shift the ideological balance on the nation's highest court further to the right — possibly for decades.
Roberts, 50, has been a member of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit — generally thought of as the second-most-important federal court — since 2003. Previously, he served in private law practice in Washington, as well as stints in the administrations of Bush's father and President Ronald Reagan.
Introducing Roberts to the nation in a prime-time address from the White House, the current President Bush noted the gravity of the moment. “One of the most consequential decisions a president makes is his appointment of a justice to the Supreme Court,” he said. “When a president chooses a justice, he's placing in human hands the authority and majesty of the law. The decisions of the Supreme Court affect the life of every American.”
He said Roberts “has profound respect for the rule of law and for the liberties guaranteed to every citizen” and that, as a justice, Roberts would “strictly apply the Constitution and laws, not legislate from the bench.”
The latter is a reference to ongoing complaints from many conservatives that so-called “activist” judges have gone beyond the Constitution's original meaning in deciding cases. But many moderates and liberals have countered that the definition of “activist” is in the eye of the beholder, pointing out examples of what they consider conservative judicial activism.
Roberts, in response, noted that he had often argued cases before the high court in his previous career as an attorney. “That experience left me with a profound appreciation for the role of the court in our constitutional democracy and a deep regard for the court as an institution,” he said. “I always got a lump in my throat whenever I walked up those marble steps to argue a case before the Court, and I don't think it was just from the nerves.”
Roberts' nomination now moves to the Senate, which has been torn by ideological and partisan debates over many of Bush's picks for lower federal courts. Bush has said his goal is to have the new justice in place by the time the Supreme Court begins its 2005-2006 term on Oct. 3, but Democrats have signaled that they won't be bound by Bush's timeline.
Republican senators offered mostly high praise for Roberts, who holds sufficiently conservative credentials. Democrats were generally cautious, not wanting to appear as if they were immediately attacking Bush's choice. But interest groups concerned with social issues offered stronger language.
“With the Roberts nomination, the right to privacy and the future of a fair-minded court are in grave danger,” said Joe Solmonese, executive director of the gay-rights group Human Rights Campaign, in a statement issued about 20 minutes before Roberts' nomination even became official. “Judge Roberts has disputed the right to privacy laid out in [the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion,] Roe vs. Wade, and urged that the case be overruled.”
He continued: “Reversing Roe could undermine fundamental rights to privacy and liberty that are the legal underpinning for the freedom of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans.”
Indeed, the court ruled in 2003 that laws banning gay sex were illegal, based on the right-to-privacy provisions the justices have interpreted in the Constitution. Those provisions also underpin the court's opinions supporting a woman's right to abortion.
But conservative religious groups offered praise for the pick. Christian Coalition President Roberta Combs issued a statement saying she believed “that President Bush kept his campaign promise today when he nominated John Roberts to the Supreme Court. We are trusting that Judge Roberts is in the mold of Supreme Court justices who President Bush promised to appoint to the Supreme Court: such as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.”
Scalia and Thomas are generally considered the high court's most conservative members.
On two issues critical to religious voters — church-state relations and abortion rights — his previous writings may indicate that he would turn the court's rulings sharply to the right. A report from the liberal group People for the American Way notes that, as deputy solicitor general under the elder President Bush, Roberts authored or signed onto court papers that said Roe vs. Wade had been “wrongly decided and should be overruled” and arguing that prayers at public-school graduation ceremonies did not violate the First Amendment.
However, when asked about Roe vs. Wade during the Senate's 2003 confirmation hearing for his nomination to the appeals court, Roberts cautioned against reading too much into his past writings.
“I do not believe that it is proper to infer a lawyer's personal views from the position that lawyer may advocate on behalf of a client in litigation,” he told the Senate Judiciary Committee. “The Supreme Court's decision in Roe is binding precedent, and if I were to be confirmed as a circuit judge, I would be bound to follow it, regardless of any personal views. Nothing in my personal views would prevent me from doing so.”
However, as a justice on the nation's highest court, Roberts would not be as absolutely bound by that body's previous rulings.
While Roberts is considered a conservative, he is reportedly also well-known and well-liked in Washington circles, including among Democrats. He developed a strong reputation as a private attorney and in the Reagan and Bush administrations as a brilliant litigator.
Roberts was born in New York and raised in Indiana. He is a graduate of Harvard University and Harvard Law School. He and his wife, Jane, have two young children and reside in Bethesda, Md., just outside Washington.