19 years ago, the Senate elevated William Rehnquist from associate justice to chief justice of the Supreme Court. Today, the Senate is set to begin to consider his possible (and likely) replacement, John Roberts.
I’ve written a good deal on Roberts already. See here for my initial view of his nomination to be chief justice.
I essentially had three reactions to his nomination: First, right after Bush announced his name, I declared that he was something of an radical and that Bush was pandering to his base. Second, upon reflection (and perspective), I stated that, whatever my initial disappointment, he was a solid conservative, perhaps the most conservative candidate Bush could have tapped without risking a serious confirmation battle. Third, I found him to be a fairly modest judge, one who could be counted upon to promote judicial restraint and the rule of law without ideological preconception. In that sense, I even went to far as to suggest that he could turn out to be an excellent justice, even something of a surprise to those who oppose him or who are otherwise treating his nomination with caution. And I repeat that here as someone who would have preferred a more moderate nominee (Gonzales was my pick) and who wants a more liberal Supreme Court.
To be sure, there ought to be a higher standard for chief justice than for associate justice, but I stand by my third reaction. John Roberts seems to be an honorable man, and I see no reason why he shouldn’t be confirmed. Of course, I continue to have my concerns. In at least one sense — his view of the role of the courts in people’s lives — he is somewhat radical. Yet I am now sufficiently convinced that he respects stare decisis enough to keep politics out of it. On this, see Jeffrey Rosen’s liberal defence of Roberts in The New Republic (and, for the other side, Marisa Katz’s liberal counterpoint). I am also sufficiently convinced that he will bring a healthy sense of humility and moderation (in terms of his temperament, character, and understanding of the purpose of the judiciary) to the Court.
Regardless, the hearings have begun — there they are on CNN as I type. From The Washington Post (including a review of Roberts’s views on a number of key issues):
The Senate convenes the first confirmation hearing for a chief justice nominee in nearly two decades today, starting a week of admonitions and questions for John G. Roberts Jr. certain to probe deeply into the conservative views of a man who could shape the court’s direction for decades to come.
The Judiciary Committee’s 10 Republicans and eight Democrats will focus on Roberts, 50, an appellate court judge and President Bush’s choice to succeed the late William H. Rehnquist, starting at noon with opening statements in the historic Caucus Room of the Russell Senate Office Building.
Analysts from both parties say the Judiciary Committee’s toughest questions — and Roberts’s likeliest risk of a slip — will center on a few issues that have dominated liberal-conservative judicial debates for years. Many will touch on the balance of power between Congress, the executive branch and the courts. Others will resonate more viscerally with ordinary people: abortion rights, voting rights and questions of balancing environmental protections against jobs and property development.
And in the tragic aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, concerns about the treatment of poor people and minorities could heavily influence the thrust of some of the questioning.
“Americans will have the opportunity for the first time to hear Judge Roberts’s views on the major issues,” Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), the committee’s most senior member, said in an interview. Katrina’s devastation underscores the hearing’s importance, he said.
“What the American people have seen is this incredible disparity in which those people who had cars and money got out, and those people who were impoverished died,” Kennedy said. The question for Roberts, he said, is whether he stands for “a fairer, more just nation” or will he use “narrow, stingy interpretations of the law to frustrate progress.”
Roberts, largely unknown outside legal circles two months ago, was Bush’s choice to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. Before his confirmation hearings could start, however, Chief Justice Rehnquist died of cancer on Sept. 3. Bush quickly nominated Roberts to succeed his former boss and mentor, and urged the full Senate to vote on his confirmation by the month’s end.
Roberts has been practicing for the hearings for weeks in front of panels of colleagues posing as committee members. But in many ways, friends say, he has been preparing for this week his entire life: dazzling his classmates at Harvard Law School, enthusiastically toiling as a government lawyer under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, and serving since 2003 as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Many Senate Democrats privately predict he will win confirmation comfortably, barring an unforeseen bombshell.
I concur. I just don’t see any “extraordinary circumstances” here, certainly nothing (so far) that warrants a filibuster. Democrats will put up a fight — partly out of conviction, partly for show — but I have no reason to believe that John Roberts won’t be easily confirmed as Rehnquist’s replacement as chief justice, the 17th in history.
Stay tuned. We’ll keep following this story closely at TMV.