U.S. Conservatives Consider What Roberts' Confirmation Could Mean
by Jenni Parker and Bill Fancher
August 1, 2005
(AgapePress) - As conservatives anticipate the process that many hope will lead to Appellate Judge John G. Roberts' confirmation as Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's replacement on the U.S. Supreme Court, many are wondering what they can expect Bush's nominee to bring to the bench if confirmed. Some pro-family leaders are convinced Roberts needs to be forthcoming about his conservative philosophy, since indications are that most Americans favor traditional values.Last month, a national survey commissioned by American Values and the American Family Association found that U.S. voters prefer a "more conservative" U.S. Supreme Court over a "more liberal" high court by 50.3 percent to 30.5 percent. The majority of survey respondents also indicated they disapprove of a number of the federal courts' most liberal decisions, suggesting that they want to see the federal judiciary move in a more conservative direction in the future.
For instance, majorities of those surveyed said they did not approve of several major judicial rulings at various levels on key cultural issues, including the decisions on the constitutionality of burning the American flag (55.5 percent disapprove); local use of eminent domain for private development (88.8 percent disapprove); the establishment of the right for same-sex couples to marry (60.1 percent disapprove); and the ruling "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional (80.9 percent disapprove). Most respondents also looked unfavorably on protecting access to partial-birth abortion (64.9 percent disapprove); and prohibiting public displays of the Ten Commandments under many circumstances (68.9 percent disapprove).
American Family Association chairman Don Wildmon observes that while some U.S. senators are applying liberal litmus tests to Bush's judicial nominees, the American voters themselves apparently oppose key pillars of the court's liberal agenda. "By all accounts," Wildmon says, "John Roberts is a conservative, and he should consider that conservatism an asset, not a liability as he proceeds through the confirmation process."
American Values president Gary Bauer agrees. He says the July survey clearly "demonstrates that President Bush's judicial nominees need not fear appearing before the U.S. Senate and stating their opposition to the liberal judicial agenda." So Roberts' best course, Bauer contends, would be to "confidently defend his conservative philosophy" during the upcoming Senate judicial confirmation hearings.
Roberts -- a Constitutionalist First, Conservative Second?
However, one Princeton University scholar is warning conservatives not to expect the new Supreme Court nominee to give them victory after victory if he is confirmed to the high court. Professor Robert George points out that, as a strict constructionist, Judge John Roberts will be very carefully in his deliberations.
"There is no guarantee with an originalist or a constitutionalist judge that that judge will always rule in favor of the conservative side in a political debate," George asserts. "Nor should there be any guarantee." The task of the court justice, he says, is not to give victories but rather to interpret the strict meaning of the constitution.
For this reason some pro-life conservatives are cautiously reserving judgment and avoiding any endorsement of Roberts until he has revealed his true stance on abortion and other sanctity-of-life issues. However, one Christian pro-life activist believes the appellate judge's reputation as a strict constructionist is in and of itself good news for the sanctity-of-life movement.
This past weekend David Bereit, national director of STOPP International, led a group of pro-life young people in several protests in defense of Roberts. The group demonstrated at the Supreme Court building, outside Democrat Senate offices, and at abortion facilities throughout the District of Columbia.
Bereit believes many who oppose Judge John Roberts' confirmation are liberal detractors and pro-abortion attackers who are simply full of fear. "They're terrified of the Constitution in its original form," the activist says. "The Constitution of the United States gives no one the right to terminate the life of an innocent person through abortion or any other means."
Any effort to stall the process, Bereit insists, or "to prevent somebody who could potentially be a strict constructionist who would interpret the Constitution as written rather than somebody who can legislate from the bench and be a judicial activist" is nothing more than "an attempt to obstruct justice."
Another outspoken Christian leader, Dr. James Dobson, feels the debate over Judge Roberts nomination is a perfect opportunity for the public to examine how U.S. judges have turned the Constitution topsy turvy. He maintains it is the American people, through their duly elected officials, who are supposed to make laws to guide the nation. However, the Focus on the Family chairman says in America today, "The people are not given a chance because an un-elected, unaccountable court -- appointed for life -- is making the decisions for them."
"We think that's wrong," Dobson says. "We think that the people ought to be allowed to choose -- and we do believe in the legislative process." For that reason, the pro-family leader says he welcomes the debate that will accompany John Roberts' confirmation hearings.
