John Roberts Supreme Court nominations

The professional qualifications (integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament) of nominees to the Supreme Court are evaluated by the American Bar Association's 15-member Standing Committee on Federal Judiciary, which offers a rating of "well qualified," "qualified," or "not qualified." The opinions of the committee bind neither the president nor the Senate; however, they are generally taken into account.^[3] On August 17, the ABA committee unanimously gave Roberts a "well qualified" rating. The positive review of Roberts's qualifications for the Court came amid an ongoing dispute between the White House and the ABA over the association's role in vetting judicial candidates.^[4]

Controversies

While Roberts was under consideration for the associate judgeship, a number of controversies related to the nomination arose.

Adoption records

While investigating Roberts' life, the

The Times was condemned by the National Council for Adoption, "NCFA denounces, in the strongest possible terms, the shocking decision of the New York Times to investigate the adoption records of Justice John Roberts' two young children. The adoption community is outraged that, for obviously political reasons, the Times has targeted the very private circumstances, motivations, and processes by which the Roberts became parents."[6]

The reasons for the adoption happening in the unnamed Latin American country remain unclear, though it was noted that the Irish 1991 Adoption Act only allows adoption of children born in Ireland by people resident in Ireland.^[7]

Federalist Society involvement

Judge Roberts has stated that he cannot recall ever having been a member of the Federalist Society. He sought and received published corrections from several major news organizations retracting earlier reports that he had been a member.^[8] On July 25, 2005, however, The Washington Post reported that John Roberts is listed in the Society's 1997–1998 leadership directory as serving on the Steering Committee of the Federalist Society. The same source also indicates the possibility that the individuals listed in the "leadership directory" are, in a technical sense, not necessarily "members" of the society, and no confirmable membership information is officially disclosed by the Society itself.

2000 presidential election activities

While an attorney at

The ads ran only in Maine and Rhode Island, the home states of moderate Republican Senators Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins and Lincoln Chafee.

The brief, which was filed almost seven years before the bombing of Lyons' clinic and which dealt with obstructing access to clinics, not bombings,^[12] argued that while abortion protesters from Operation Rescue could not be prosecuted under the 1871 Federal Ku Klux Klan Act for discrimination, they had violated state law by trespassing. Ultimately, the Supreme Court agreed, ruling 6 to 3 in Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic that opposition to abortion did not constitute discrimination against women "as is evident from the fact that men and women are on both sides of the issue, just as men and women are on both sides of petitioners' unlawful demonstrations."

Even before the ad was shown on television, White House spokesman Steve Schmidt responded to them, describing the claims as "outrageously false, bordering on the slanderous." While Roberts in his amicus brief for the Government, argued that abortion protestors could not be prosecuted federally for discrimination, he pointed out that the defendants obstruction was illegal under Virginia law. Further, Roberts has argued in a Reagan administration memo that violence such as bombings had no protection under the law: "No matter how lofty or sincerely held the goal, those who resort to violence to achieve it are criminals," he wrote.^[13] NARAL was unimpressed with this memo, arguing that it was not an official action like his amicus brief.^{[citation needed]}

NARAL argued that "This wasn't an arcane legal dispute, but a fight over whether or not law enforcement could use their most effective weapon [the Klan Act] against extremists who use violence."

President George W. Bush announced that he would nominate Judge John Roberts as the Supreme Court's 17th chief justice on September 5, 2005, two days after the death of Chief Justice William Rehnquist, and five weeks after selecting him for appointment to succeed O'Connor as associate justice.^[16] The following day, Bush officially nominated Roberts to be the next Chief Justice, and simultaneously withdrew Roberts's still-pending Associate Justice nomination.^[17] Confirmation hearings on the Roberts Associate Justice nomination, set to begin on September 6, were canceled, and rescheduled hearings, for his Chief Justice nomination, began on September 12.^[2]

When announcing Roberts's nomination, Bush noted that the Court's next term began in but a few weeks (October 3), stating, "It is in the interest of the court and the country to have a Chief Justice on the bench on the first full day of the fall term." He went on to say, "The Senate is well along in the process of considering Judge Roberts's qualifications. They know his record and his fidelity to the law. I'm confident that the Senate can complete hearings and confirm him as chief justice within a month."^[16] Senate Democrats vowed to put Roberts under greater scrutiny now that he was being nominated for chief justice, but gave no indication that his nomination faced any significant difficulties. The Senate Majority Leader, Republican Bill Frist, anticipated no problems, saying, "I still expect Judge Roberts to be confirmed before the Supreme Court starts its new term on October 3."^[16]

No hearings nor votes had yet been held by the Judiciary Committee on Roberts' nomination before this announcement was made.^[2]

Chief Justice nomination

Roberts' nomination for Associate Justice was withdrawn on September 6, 2005, and he was formally nominated to serve as Chief Justice.^[2]

Confirmation hearings

On September 22, 2005, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 13–5 to send the Roberts nomination to the full Senate with a recommendation that it be confirmed. Roberts garnered the votes of all 10 Republicans on the committee and of three Democrats: Patrick Leahy, Herb Kohl and Russ Feingold.[22]

Confirmation vote

John Roberts was confirmed as chief justice on September 29, 2005, by a commanding majority, 78–22, of the Senate. All 55 Republicans voted "yes", as did 22 Democrats, and one independent; voting "no" were 22 Democrats.^[23] Later that same day, the 50-year-old Roberts was given the general Constitutional oath by the senior Associate Justice, John Paul Stevens, in a ceremony at the White House. Prior to the ceremony, President Bush said, "The Senate has confirmed a man with an astute mind and a kind heart."^[24] On October 3, he took the prescribed judicial oath at the United States Supreme Court Building, becoming the first new Supreme Court justice in 11 years, and the youngest to enter the office since John Marshall, who was confirmed in 1801 at age 45. After Roberts was sworn in, the era of the Roberts Court began, with Chief Justice Roberts, and Associate Justices Stevens, O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer.^[23]

See also

• George W. Bush Supreme Court candidates
• Roberts Court

References

External links

Wikinews has related news:

• President Bush nominates John Roberts as Chief Justice of the U.S.

• Video and transcripts from the Roberts confirmation hearings - The New York Times