July 20, 2005

President Bush, at 9:00 p.m. this past evening, nominated Judge John Roberts, Jr. for the position of associate justice of the United States Supreme Court to fill the vacancy created by Judge Sandra Day O'Connor's resignation. Battle lines were drawn quickly. A poster at the left-wing message board DemocraticUnderground.com said, in a post entitled "to WAR!!!!" that "Bush's pick is a direct assault on the social progress of the 20th century. This creature, Roberts, is the spawn of the Federalist Society a twisted, sick and perverted Ôschool" of Ôscholars" whose theories on the Constitution are warped and distorted with no basis in fact and with no fidelity to nearly 250 years of American jurisprudence." On the influential left-wing blog The Daily Kos one poster had already designed a t-shirt for sale with Judge Robert's picture on the front and the words "what a disaster" on the back.

On the right, many bloggers and court watchers are enthusiastic about Judge Roberts. Sean Rushton, executive director of CommitteeforJustice.org, told Free Market News that at least one Democrat, Senator Joseph Lieberman, stated that Judge Roberts was "in the ballpark" of Supreme Court nominees who would not be filibustered by the Senate. Rushton further noted that Lieberman's comment, among other factors, "would make it hard for the left to justify a filibuster." His point of view is perhaps bolstered by the fact that when Judge Roberts was first appointed to the federal bench in the middle of the era of Democrat filibusters of President Bush's judicial nominees, he came out of the Senate Judicial Committee on a vote of 16-3 and was confirmed by simple voice vote of the Senate on May 8, 2003 with no filibuster or the prolonged debate the Senate had engaged in with many other nominees of the time.

Judge Roberts, according to his official biography at the Department of Justice website, was born in 1955 and attended Harvard University both as an undergrad and later graduating Summa Cum Laude from Harvard Law School in 1979 as managing editor of the Harvard Law Review. Roberts clerked for Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist, went on to serve as associate counsel to President Reagan's White House, then went into private practice as an attorney, and in 1989 went back to public service as a deputy solicitor general of the United States. Judge Roberts has argued an impressive thirty-nine cases before the United States Supreme Court. Since he began his tenure on the federal bench only two years ago, many have described him as quiet, polite, and thoughtful, as well as conservative.

While President Bush said from the podium while announcing his nomination that "The decisions of the Supreme Court affect the life of every American, and so a nominee to that court must be a person of superb credentials and the highest integrity, a person who will faithfully apply the Constitution and keep our founding promise of equal justice under law. I have found such a person in Judge John Roberts." Minutes after the President's announcement, Democrat Senators Patrick Leahy and Chuck Schumer held a press conference. Senator Leahy stated that "no one is entitled to a free pass" to the Supreme Court while Senator Schumer promised to require Roberts to answer an exhaustive line of questions about his personal beliefs. Democrat Senator Dick Durbin issued a statement that Roberts was "a controversial nominee" deserving "a controversial nomination process." Observers of the nomination process can be forgiven for thinking that legalized abortion will be, essentially, the only issue regarding this Supreme Court nominee, as well as all other future nominees. On that issue, Judge Roberts is quoted as saying, during his 2003 nomination hearings, that Roe v. Wade was "the settled law of the land" and that he would be guided by legal precedents. On the other hand, the left has latched on to Robert's statement, while an attorney in a brief in the case of Rust v. Sullivan, that "Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled." Whether because of, or in spite of, that statement in a legal brief, Roberts position was ultimately successful in the Rust case, in which the Supreme Court allowed the federal government's ban on taxpayer funding of referrals to abortion clinics to stand. Nearly everyone who watches and comments on the high court expects a big fight over any new nominee, and so far the major players seem to signal that Judge Robert's nomination will, indeed, be a fight of epic proportions. It remains to be seen, however, how the Senate will be able to argue that treat a nominee who only two years ago was confirmed as a federal judge with almost no opposition might now be unacceptable.