|
Chambliss Statement on Nomination of Judge John Roberts to the U.S. Supreme Court WASHINGTON - U.S. Senator Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., a former member of the United States Senate Judiciary Committee, issued the following statement regarding President George W. Bush’s nomination of Judge John Roberts to the United States Supreme Court. Roberts has been nominated to fill the vacancy of Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Conner, who announced her retirement early this month. “I applaud President Bush’s nomination of Judge Roberts to the Supreme Court. Having argued 39 cases before the Supreme Court, his strong legal intellect and experience on the federal bench make Judge Roberts a great candidate for the job. Judge Roberts is highly professional, qualified, and has the right temperament to serve on our nation’s highest Court. As former member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I developed a favorable impression of Judge Roberts in his confirmation hearing and in personal visits with him leading up to his confirmation. “Through his many years of public service, Judge Roberts has demonstrated his faithfulness to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law. Because a Supreme Court Justice serves a lifetime appointment, it’s critical that this vacancy, and all future vacancies, be filled with individuals who will strictly interpret the United States Constitution and not legislate from the federal bench. “I am confident that President Bush has selected Roberts because of his proven track record of applying the law as written and not making policy from the bench. I look forward to working with my colleagues as the Senate begins its Constitutional responsibility regarding the confirmation process.” ### Isakson Statement on Supreme Court Nominee WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) tonight issued the following statement in response to President Bush’s nomination of John G. Roberts Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to the U.S. Supreme Court: “President Bush has given us an outstanding nominee. John Roberts is a distinguished and experienced jurist. “I look forward to considering the President’s nominee deliberatively, fairly and expeditiously. I will not apply any kind of litmus test for Judge Roberts, and I expect this body to treat him with respect and dignity during the confirmation process. “Every judge nominated by this president – or any president – deserves an up or down vote, one way or another. It is the responsibility of the Senate. It is the direction of the Constitution. “I am hopeful my Senate colleagues will share my goal of confirming Judge Roberts before the new Supreme Court term begins in October.” ### The following is a profile of Judge John Roberts and a summary of decisions he has handed down. It is very thorough and lengthy. You may want to print it out.
*Clerkships: Law Clerk,
Hon. Henry Friendly, United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, 1979-1980; Law Clerk, Associate Justice William Rehnquist,
Supreme Court of the United States, 1980-1981. The most notable materials concerning Roberts's service in the Office of Solicitor General were: (1) the government's brief in the Rust v. Sullivan abortion case, co-written by Roberts, which argued not only that regulations prohibiting Title X funding recipients from counseling patients on abortion did not violate Title X or the First or Fifth Amendments, but also that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, and (2) the government's briefs in Lujan (see below), upon which Robert's was attacked during his circuit court confirmation hearings. Roberts's written opinions evidence a strong acceptance of principles of judicial restraint. Roberts's two dissents from the denials of en ban review have attracted more attention than any of his written opinions. Roberts dissented from denial of en ban review in the Rancho Viejo case -- a case upholding the Department of the Interior's suppression of real estate development to protect an endangered species -- the southwestern arroyo toad. Roberts's dissent focused on judicially conservative principles of Commerce Clause jurisprudence (but in the context of a case involving politically sensitive environmental regulation). Roberts's also dissented from the denial of en banc review in the Administration's Energy Task Force case, which provoked claims that Roberts unduly supported Administration secrecy. Opponents will undoubtedly argue that Roberts is hostile to abortion rights because (a) the brief in Rust v. Sullivan, co-written by Roberts during his tenure with the Solicitor General's office, argued not only that regulations that prohibiting Title X funding recipients from counseling patients on abortion did not violate Title X or the First or Fifth Amendments, but also that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided; (b) Roberts co-authored the government's amicus brief in Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic, 506 U.S. 263 (1993), a private suit brought against Operation Rescue, which argued that Operation Rescue was not engaged in a conspiracy to deprive women of equal protection rights; and (c) he's Catholic and therefore predisposed to advancing the social policies of the Catholic Church through judicial opinions. Opponents have argued that Roberts supports an expanded role of religion in schools, citing two briefs he co-authored while with the Solicitor General's office: Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992) (arguing that public high schools should be allowed to conduct religious ceremonies as part of a graduation program); Mergens v. Westside Community School District, 496 U.S. 226 (1990) (arguing that barring a religious group from meeting on school grounds violates the Equal Access Act, while granting access does not violate the Establishment Clause). In addition, opponents have cited Roberts's brief in U.S. v. Eichman, U.S. v. Haggerty, 496 U.S. 310 (1990), arguing that the 1989 Flag Act, which prohibited burning the U.S. flag, did not violate the First Amendment. The Court subsequently held 5-4 that the Flag Act was unconstitutional. In his confirmation hearings, opponents argued that Roberts's participation on behalf on the government in two amicus briefs indicates a desire to limit the rights of criminal defendants. See Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992) (amicus brief arguing that the Ninth Circuit test to permit a court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint only if it could take judicial notice that the facts alleged did not occur was too stringent); Burns v. U.S., 501 U.S. 129 (1991) (amicus brief arguing that no advance notice to defendant was required for an upward departure from sentencing guidelines). In further support of this attack, opponents might note two D.C. Circuit decisions authored by Roberts for a unanimous panel: (a) U.S. v. Holmes, 385 F.3d 786 (D.C. Cir. 2004), holding that the search of a passenger compartment of defendant's car did not exceed the scope of search incident to his arrest for assaulting an officer; and (b) U.S. v. Tucker, 2004 WL 2381324 (D.C. Cir., Oct. 26, 2004), holding that the lower court's substantial downward departure from sentencing guidelines was not justified for the reason stated by the lower court, namely, that the sentencing guidelines are unjust. (Tucker, of course, involved a tirade by Judge Jackson who indicated that because he thought the Guidelines-mandated sentence too harsh, he would grant a downward departure without making the necessary findings and admittedly invite appellate reversal. The D.C. Circuit scolded Jackson, and reversed and remanded to give the district court an opportunity to make appropriate factual findings for the departure.) During his confirmation to the D.C. Circuit, left-wing activist groups accused Roberts of being hostile to civil rights and affirmative action, citing the following cases in which Roberts co-authored briefs while in the Solicitor General's office: (a) Oklahoma City Public Schools v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237 (1991) (this brief, according to the Alliance for Justice, "sought to weaken the standard and limit the timeline for court-enforced desegregation decrees in the nation's schools"), and (b) Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467 (1992) (according to the Alliance for Justice, this brief successfully argued "to lower the bar for the proof that school systems that had previously engaged in de jure discrimination had to show in order to obtain the court's revocation of a desegregation decree."). Opponents may also cite: (a) Roberts's opinion (for a unanimous panel of Roberts, Henderson and, again, Tatel) in Sioux Valley Rural Television, Inc. v. FCC, 349 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir. 2003), in which the court rejected petitioners' claim that the FCC's new bidding rules revoking minority and women-owned business credits while at the same time extending credits for all successful small businesses did not have a discriminatory intent and were not arbitrary and capricious when applied retroactively; (b) Roberts's opinion (panel included Henderson and Williams) in Hedgepeth v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 2004 WL 2381320 (Oct. 26, 2004), in which he held that a 12 year old girl's arrest for eating a french fry in a rail transit station did not violate her civil rights under the Equal Protection Clause or the Fourth Amendment; and (c) Roberts's decision (for a unanimous panel including Roberts, Randolph, and Williams) in Stewart v. Evans, 351 F.3d 1239 (D.C. Cir. 2003), holding that a female employee did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to certain personal notes she had taken regarding a male co-worker's inappropriate behavior because she turned them over to a FOIA representative with the understanding that they might be further disclosed, even though the FOIA rep agreed not to reveal them within the Department and maintained them in a locked safe. Roberts has stated that the Rehnquist Court, which many consider to be conservative leaning, "cannot be considered conservative," a quote that many opponents focused on during his D.C. Circuit confirmation hearing, and which indicates Roberts might be more conservative than his current record indicates. Roberts is also Catholic. Of Special note: *Rust v. Sullivan, 1990 WL 505725 (Sept. 7, 1990). The government's brief here, co-written by Roberts, arguably went beyond what was required by the case's merits to state the broader policy of the administration -- that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided. The most controversial portion of the brief is the following quote: Petitioners argue that the Secretary's regulations impermissibly burden the qualified right discerned in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), to choose to have an abortion. . . . We continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled. As more fully explained in our briefs, filed as amicus curiae, in Hodgson v. Minnesota, 110 S. Ct. 2926 (1990); Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 109 S. Ct. 3040 (1989); Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 476 U.S. 747 (1986); and City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, 462 U.S. 416 (1983), the Court's conclusions in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion and that government has no compelling interest in protecting prenatal human life throughout pregnancy find no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution. If Roe is overturned, petitioners' contention that the Title X regulations burden the right announced in Roe falls with it. But even under Roe's strictures, the Title X regulations at issue do not violate due process. This Court has repeatedly recognized that 'the Due Process Clauses generally confer no affirmative right to governmental aid, even where such aid may be necessary to secure life, liberty, or property interests of which the government itself may not deprive the individual." (citations omitted). Thus, while under Roe the government may not prohibit a woman, during the first trimester, from choosing to have an abortion, the government is not obligated to provide the means to exercise any such right. . . . (citations omitted).
*United States v. A Parcel of Land, Buildings, Appurtenances . . . 92 Buena Vista Ave., Rumson NJ, 1993 WL 445385. Brief argues in support of a tough approach to the enforcement of a civil forfeiture statute for property purchased with the proceeds from a drug transaction(s). The government's position was that even when a person (here, a girlfriend) receives a gift of money derived from drug sales and purchases property with that gift, that person cannot assert a valid "innocent owner" defense. *Several left-wing extremist groups objected to Roberts and will likely do so again. Objections came from NARAL based on his authorship of briefs in (a) Rust v. Sullivan, in which he stated that the Supreme Court's conclusion in Roe v. Wade that there is a fundamental right to abortion "finds no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution"; and (b) Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic, in which he argued (as amicus) that anti-abortion protestors' behavior did not constitute gender-based discrimination. Objections from labor groups came from Roberts' involvement in Toyota Motor Mfg. v. Williams, in which Roberts argued that an employee's carpal tunnel syndrome did not qualify her for protection under the ADA.
Thank you for Keeping The
Faith |