Roberts a 'Supreme' Choice for High Court, Say Evangelicals and Conservatives
by Jody Brown and Mary Rettig
July 20, 2005
(AgapePress) - George W. Bush's nomination to fill the vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court is receiving rave reviews from evangelical leaders and conservatives around the country. Only time will tell if Democrats in the Senate can be convinced to join them.
Before a national television audience last night (July 19), President George W. Bush did something he had never had the opportunity to do before -- nominate a judge to the Supreme Court of the United States. With nominee John G. Roberts standing beside him, the president introduced the jurist, describing him as a man who not only "has a good heart," but also a "profound respect for the rule of law." If confirmed by the U.S. Senate, the 50-year-old native of Buffalo, NY, who now sits on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, would replace the retiring Sandra Day O'Connor.
Various members of the Senate offered their initial assessments of Roberts' qualifications to sit on the high court. Republican Senator John Cornyn of Texas, who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, describes the nominee as "an exceptional judge, brilliant legal mind, and a man of outstanding character who understands his profound duty to follow the law." Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania agrees that Roberts is "brilliant," and applauds the president for his selection of Roberts.
"I think the president did what he promised during the [2004] campaign. He looked for the best and the brightest, and he chose someone who would meet the test, the high test, that Supreme Court justices would be required to meet," the Republican lawmaker says.
A leading Senate Democrat offers this qualified response: "The president has chosen someone with suitable legal credentials," says Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, "but that is not the end of our inquiry. The Senate must review Judge Roberts' record to determine if he has a demonstrated commitment to the core American values of freedom, equality, and fairness."
Or as New York Democrat Chuck Schumer put it: "I hope Judge Roberts, understanding how important this nomination is, particularly when replacing a swing vote [referring to O'Connor], will decide to answer questions about his views." Schumer, a member of the Judiciary Committee, says he voted against Roberts' move to the D.C. court in 2003.
Roberts, of course, must first pass muster with the Judiciary Committee before being presented to the full Senate for confirmation. Between now and then, liberal groups are expected to stake their claims that the nominee has taken positions in previous cases that endanger the rights of free speech and religious liberty.
Abortion advocates, for example, will likely point to a brief Roberts co-wrote in 1990 in which he stated the 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade "finds no support in the text, structure or history of the Constitution." But in his 2003 confirmation hearings, Roberts defended himself by saying he would be guided by legal precedent. "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land," he stated at that time. "There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent."
Roberts Highly Respected
Not surprisingly, evangelical leaders and conservatives are applauding Roberts' nomination to the high court. Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family says the appellate judge is "unquestionably qualified."
"President Bush is to be commended for keeping his promise to the American people by selecting such an impartial, accomplished jurist to fill this crucial seat on the high court," Dobson says in a press statement. "[John Roberts] has demonstrated at every stop on his career path the legal acumen, judicial temperament, and personal integrity necessary to be a Supreme Court justice."
Jan LaRue, chief counsel for Concerned Women for America, likes Roberts' experience. "[He] is widely respected for his appellate advocacy, having argued some 39 cases before the Supreme Court," she notes. "He knows how to think on his feet." And the judge's "warm, engaging personality," she says, will be an asset during his hearings as well as a "big plus for him with the American people."
LaRue also is hopeful Democrats will not filibuster the nomination -- and says she sees no reason why Roberts' confirmation should be delayed. No reasonable person, she says, can claim the DC jurist is "out of the mainstream." Still, she expects liberals in the Senate to "re-run plays from their judicial warfare book" when hearings begin.
American Values president Gary Bauer calls Roberts "a refreshing nominee" with an outstanding record of judicial accomplishment as well as a "commitment to judicial restraint long missing from so many activist courts."
Likewise, Dr. Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention sees Roberts' nomination as an opportunity to move the high court away from an activist role. He contends the nominee "gives every indication of being the kind of judge that will be a neutral judicial umpire, calling them the way the Constitution sees them -- not seeking to 'fix' the game by tilting judicial decisions toward those who do not offend his personal sense of right and wrong."
Roberts 'Extraordinary'
Two Christian attorneys are also highly complimentary of Bush's choice to replace Justice O'Connor. Brian Fahling, a senior trial attorney with the American Family Association's Center for Law & Policy, says Roberts' legal pedigree is one of the best he's ever seen.
"He served in the Reagan administration, he served under the first President George Bush. He had a stellar private practice; he's been on the DC Court of Appeals for two years. He appeared before the Supreme Court 39 times [and] was successful 25 of those," Fahling shares.
"He is highly regarded on both the Left and the Right as a lawyer. He's got a great judicial temperament, brilliant legal mind," the lawyer continues. "This man is truly extraordinary, even by the standards of Supreme Court justice nominees."
And the AFA attorney sees no contradiction in Roberts' opinions on Roe v. Wade. He says Roberts knew his position at the time was subordinate to the Supreme Court, which meant he had no authority to overturn the court's ruling. But according to Fahling, that would change if Roberts is confirmed by the Senate.
"As a Supreme Court justice, he then sits or occupies an office that permits him to actually cast a vote that would overturn Roe, because now he is charged -- as the final arbiter of the Constitution with respect to cases that come before him as one of those justices -- to make a decision that Roe was wrongly decided," the attorney explains.
Fahling describes the Supreme Court nominee as a strict constructionist who will not legislate from the bench, and whose respect for the courts makes him an excellent choice to sit on the nation's highest bench.
Another leading Christian attorney agrees with Fahling, saying Bush's nomination of Judge Roberts is good news for religious conservatives. Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, explains to Associated Press why he sees it that way.
"John Roberts is someone who understands the role of the judges [is] not to legislate from the bench," Sekulow says. That judicial philosophy, he adds, always "bodes well" for issues of concern to conservative Christians, from religious liberty to obscenity on the Internet to abortion and life.
"I'm optimistic," Sekulow says. "You don't know how a judge is going to rule on a particular case, but John Roberts' judicial philosophy is one I'm very comfortable with."
If confirmed to the Supreme Court, Roberts would immediately be put to the test with a challenge to an abortion law, an assisted suicide case, and an appeal that touches on homosexual rights. All will be argued in the term that begins in October.
