WASHINGTON (ABP) — Federal appeals-court judge John Roberts is one step closer to becoming the 17th chief justice of the United States, after gaining the approval of the Senate Judiciary Committee Sept. 22.
The committee approved Roberts by a bipartisan margin of 13-5, with three of the committee's eight Democrats voting to send his nomination to the full Senate.
“Judge Roberts is a man of integrity; I take him at his word that he does not have an ideological agenda,” said Sen. Patrick Leahy (Vt.), the panel's highest-ranking Democratic member, in explaining why he would vote for Roberts.
However, he said to his fellow Democrats, “I have great respect for those who have come to different conclusions. I readily acknowledge the unknowable at this moment: that perhaps they are right and I am wrong. Only time will tell.”
Several moderate-to-liberal advocacy groups have expressed opposition to Roberts' nomination, largely on the basis of his writings as a government lawyer in the administration of President Ronald Reagan. Many organizations supportive of civil rights, women's rights and church-state separation have called parts of Roberts' record into question.
Some Democrats and moderate Republicans said their fears about Roberts were allayed by his response to several questions during his Sept. 12-15 confirmation hearings — such as mentioning repeatedly that he has “no quarrel” with several Supreme Court decisions that they support.
But, as Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) pointed out, a previous Supreme Court nominee used very similar language during his confirmation hearings — but ended up having major quarrels with such decisions when he got on the bench.
“I was struck as I reread the transcript by his use of this line — 'I have no quarrel with' — five times,” said Feinstein, referring to the transcripts from Roberts' hearings.
“And then I went back and read [Justice Clarence Thomas' confirmation-hearing] transcript,” she continued. “And he used that phrase eight times on eight different topics. And yet when faced with these topics on the court, he took a position indicating that he did, in fact, have a quarrel with the case — on abortion, on church-and-state separation, on precedent, and on the commerce clause. He took a clear position that contradicted his use of the words, 'I have no quarrel with.'”
She concluded: “So I came to believe that 'I have no quarrel with' is a kind of term of art of equivocation, frankly.”
Meanwhile, many conservative groups have strongly endorsed Roberts, believing he will interpret the Constitution the way they want.
A Sept. 22 press release from the Family Research Council said Roberts' performance during his confirmation hearings showed that “he is exceptionally impartial and fair-minded.” The statement from Connie Mackey, the group's vice president for government affairs, continued, “I am encouraged that Judge Roberts has indicated that he will strictly interpret the Constitution and respect the role of the legislative branch to create public policy.”
Social conservatives often express support for a school of constitutional interpretation, called “strict constructionism,” that eschews modern developments in interpreting the document. Moderates and liberals often criticize such a philosophy as too inflexible to adapt an 18th-century document to a 21st-century context.
Nonetheless, the Judiciary Committee's only pro-choice Republican said he supported Roberts' understanding of the Constitution enough to vote for him. Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.) said he “was pleased to hear his testimony about his view on flexibility, in his comment that the framers were crafting a document that they intended to apply in a meaningful way down through the ages. So it's not a static document; it's not a matter of original intent.”