If I Were a Senator: No on Roberts

On 20 July 2005, the day after President Bush nominted John Roberts to be an Associate Justice on the United States Supreme Court, I wrote:

If I were a senator I’d be withholding any sort of judgment. Granted, a Republican president sits in the White House. As such we should expect a conservative nominee (just as we would expect a more center-left candidate from a Democratic president). But plenty of questions need to be asked of [Roberts] – and answered by him.

If confirmation hearings show that he is a strong federalist and a defender of judicial restraint, then the Senate should give the Republican president his associate justice."

And had that nomination gone to the Senate floor this week, I would be endorsing Judge Roberts' confirmation. But as Chief Justice of the United States? I urge the Senate to reject the nomination.

At the risk of sounding Kerry-esque, let me explain. During confirmation hearings earlier this month, Roberts showed no signs that he would legislate the Republican Party's fascist agenda from the bench; he seemed to be respectful of precedent and acknowledged a right to privacy. As a nominee for the associate seat, those qualities would lead me to support a "yes" vote from the Senate.

Don't get me wrong, Judge Roberts is not my number one choice for the job. Nobody George W. Bush nominates to the federal bench would be. But my guy lost the last presidential election and Mr. Bush was victorious. One of the perks of winning the presidency is the ability to nominate judges to the federal bench. And John Roberts is about as good as we're going to get from a conservative like George Bush.

Thus, my endorsement to reject Roberts as Chief Justice doesn't come from a partisan angle. My problem with this nomination is the judge's experience - or rather, his lack of it.

In the halls of the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice is considered to be the justice with most seniority, independent of the number of years he or she has served. He or she chairs the conferences where cases are discussed and voted on and thus has great influence in framing the discussion. And while there is precedent for the nomination of a novice to this position (Earl Warren was elevated to Chief with no judicial experience), surely there are other candidates the President can nominate to the high seat. This is just another example of George W. Bush nominating an unexperienced Republican insider to a job they're not completely qualified for.

The leader of the Court should have a certain judicial gravitas; a level of maturity with which to steer the Constitutional issues of the day through the court to just outcomes.

John Roberts has been a judge for two years. He is not qualified for the high seat. Not by a long shot. The Senate should reject his nomination.