• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

Photo

Court nominee John Roberts walks to a meeting on Capitol Hill last week.

As the confirmation process of Supreme Court nominee John Roberts Jr. begins, it will be up to the nation’s senators to decipher who this largely unknown federal judge is and where he stands on today’s most divisive issues. Though many suspect the 55-year-old Harvard graduate, if confirmed, would sway the Court to the right on a range of issues, including abortion rights and military recruitment, his brief stint as a federal appellate judge left a thin paper trail with which to substantiate any speculation on the nominee’s ideological leanings, leaving Democrats and some liberal advocacy groups with little ammunition against him. “That lack of a record is problematic for the left and a little problematic for the right,” said UCLA law Professor Grant Nelson. Throughout last week, the search to ascertain who Roberts is and what kind of justice he may be on the high court has generally resulted in two types of characterizations. One the one hand, Roberts is often described as a sound and predictable conservative. On the other, he is said to be a brilliant open-minded jurist. Roberts’ strong conservative loyalty is perhaps the one known factor in this highly enigmatic figure. “Roberts has spent the last part of two decades working for conservative administrations. I think he’s probably more of a known commodity. ... I think the term that most applies to him is solid. The last term you’d think is radical,” Nelson said. Bush has also called the one-time lawyer “one of the best legal minds of his generation,” adding that Roberts has probably argued more cases in front of the Supreme Court than any other living person. “Looking at his resume, there is no doubt about his intellectual capabilities ... his basic confidence is unquestioned,” said Jonathan Varat, also a UCLA law professor. In the past, Roberts has garnered support from both sides of the aisle, and his reputation may explain the cautious reaction by Senate Democrats thus far. “They probably think it’s a waste of political capital to oppose someone who’s highly regarded intelligently and personally. So why bother?” Varat said. The hushed response to the Roberts nomination by Senate Democrats has also been attributed by many to fears of being labeled as partisan contrarians, an attack often made by the right during the contentious lower court nominations of the past year. The duration of the summer will find senators digging into Roberts’ past, reading his old law reviews and poring over the documents he’s written in an attempt to learn more about the man. “It’s a little presumptuous to cast opinions this early,” said Ari Rabin-Havt, spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. “The Senate’s going to carefully review the person and guarantee that he respects the Constitution.” Democrats, including Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, have repeatedly said they would like to see the White House release all documents and memos written by Roberts when he worked under two Republican administrations. But the Bush administration said it does not intend to release all the documents because some of the material falls under attorney-client privilege. While leading Democrats are proceeding with care and attempting to learn more about the nominee, some liberal advocacy groups have loudly opposed Roberts, even without the backing of their Senate allies. Moveon.org, a left-leaning online advocacy group, brought the fight to the streets of Westwood on Thursday evening, as members gathered on Broxton Avenue to urge passersby to sign petitions against the nomination because they believe he is a corporate lobbyist.

Ambiguous on the issues If confirmed, Roberts could have an immediate impact on some vital issues, with abortion rights likely to be the most contentious. In his first year, Roberts would rule on a case determining whether doctors could perform abortions on minors without alerting their parents beforehand. “I would be shocked if he didn’t vote to uphold regulation of ... parental notification,” Nelson said. Roberts would also rule on the regulation of late-term abortion, an issue on which former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who cast the deciding vote, sided with the Court’s liberal bloc. She argued that a ban would force some women to undergo risky surgery. Some of Roberts’ previous actions may point to the stance he will take on abortion rights, particularly a 1991 brief Roberts co-wrote in which he argued that Roe v. Wade, the landmark case legalizing abortion, was “wrongly decided and should be overruled.” But even this example doesn’t fully explain Roberts’ stance on the issue. In 2003, when Roberts was up for a federal judgeship, he was asked about this brief, to which he responded that he had made the argument on behalf of the administration and that if he became a judge, “there is nothing in (his) personal views that would prevent (him) from fully and faithfully applying that precedent.” During his first year, Roberts would also hear cases targeting military recruitment on college campuses, an issue that recently stirred a heated legal battle between the military, who believes it has the ability to recruit in a time of war, and some of the nation’s top law schools, which are trying to keep recruiters off their campuses because their presence may violate academic freedom of expression. But what it really comes down to is that no one can accurately predict how Roberts will vote. “A lot of this, and it’s an important caveat, is that it’s really hard to know, in the case of any judicial nominee, how they will actually rule. Most of what you’re hearing is a guess as to what he might do,” said Orin Kerr, a professor at George Washington Law School. In the coming months, a special committee in the Senate will hold confirmation hearings where supporters and detractors will be able to voice their opinions and where the nominee will testify. In the end, a simple majority vote may decide Roberts’ fate, unless senators opposed to the nomination decide to filibuster, in which a three-fifths majority will be necessary. A filibuster, though, seems unlikely as Roberts continues to get tentative nods of approval from both sides and legal experts predict a subdued confirmation process. From what is known so far, there is nothing in Roberts’ record that could bring the Senate confirmation hearings to a halt. “They won’t filibuster him. If they do, they’ll lose,” Nelson said. The court goes back into session in October, but no concrete timeline for Robert’s nomination has been set.