Chief Justice Nominee Roberts Takes Safe Road
By MBA
John G. Roberts Jr., 50, was nominated by President Bush to replace Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who died of cancer Sept. 3 at age 80. If confirmed, as expected, Roberts would become the youngest chief justice in more than 200 years and could potentially shape the direction of the court for decades.
Currently a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Roberts would be the first new member of the Supreme Court in 11 years.
Roberts has been appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee for his confirmation hearings, now in their third day. During these hearings he has been grilled on his personal positions on issues that have affected the country this century.
On the Eminent Domain Supreme Court ruling which allows cities to seize private property in the interest of private economic development, Roberts says that it is "very appropriate" for Congress to consider legislation that would counter that ruling.
The June ruling in the case of Kelo v. the City of New London, effectively expanded the right of local governments to seize private property under eminent domain. The court ruled 5-4 that people's homes and businesses -- even those not considered blighted -- can be taken against their will for private development if the seizure serves a broadly defined "public use."
Noting that the ruling had caused "an uproar across the country," Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) asked Roberts, "Isn't it now the case that it's much easier for one man's home to become another man's castle?"
Roberts said the high court majority had including a "caveat" in the decision, saying they were ruling only in the context of an urban redevelopment plan and noting that some states have passed legislation restricting the seizure power.
When Brownback noted that Congress is also considering legislation, Roberts said, "And I think that's a very appropriate approach to consider." He said the court leaves it up to legislatures to determine whether and how they want to exercise eminent domain powers.
Congress has been contemplating legislation that would bar federal funding for any project that proceeds under the ruling.
As he did during yesterday's hearing, Roberts repeatedly parried questions seeking to elicit his views on controversial legal issues that he said could come before him on the Supreme Court. The questions included several on abortion from two senators who strongly oppose it: Republicans Brownback of Kansas and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma.
When Roberts was asked if he would reverse the long-standing decision legalizing abortion, he said he believed the Constitution accorded Americans the right to privacy, the key underpinning of the landmark ruling.
Asked by Brownback whether individuals with disabilities have constitutional rights while they are still in the womb, Roberts said he must refrain from answering.
Some of the sharpest exchanges came when Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) grilled the nominee on privacy and right-to-die issues. Although Biden called Roberts "one of the best witnesses to come before this committee" in his three decades on the panel, he later expressed frustration with the judge's answers.
Pressed for a personal opinion as a family man on whether a legislature should be empowered to decide on keeping or removing a comatose person's feeding tube, Roberts said, "I'm not going to consider issues like that in the context as a father or a husband or anything else..." A judge should not "incorporate his or her personal views in deciding issues of this sort," he said, adding, "If you're interpreting a particular statute that governs in this area, your job as a judge is to interpret and apply that according to the rule of law."
Biden complained that Roberts was refusing to share his understanding of the law and that "we are rolling the dice with you, judge."
At another point the senator said, "you've told me nothing" and lamented "this Kabuki dance we have in these hearings here, as if the public doesn't have a right to know what you think about fundamental issues facing them." Lawmakers and the president must answer questions on what they believe to get elected, while a Supreme Court nominee "doesn't have to tell us anything," Biden said. "It's okay, as long as he is -- as you are -- a decent, bright, honorable man, that's all we need to know."
Roberts replied, "You make the point that, 'We stand for election and we wouldn't be elected if we didn't tell people what we stand for.' Judges don't stand for election. I'm not standing for election. And it is contrary to the role of judges in our society to say that, 'This judge should go on the bench because these are his or her positions and those are the positions they're going to apply.' Judges go on the bench and they apply and decide cases according to the judicial process, not on the basis of promises made earlier to get elected or promises made earlier to get confirmed. That's inconsistent with the independence and integrity of the Supreme Court."
In response to a question from Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), Roberts said, "I do think I've been more expansive than most nominees" to the Supreme Court in previous confirmation hearings.
Back
to top
Related...
Home
Related Links