# His Honor Chief Justice John G. Roberts **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 29, 2005, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/his-honor-chief-justice-john-g-roberts/324052 "2005-09-29T17:17:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2005, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/his-honor-chief-justice-john-g-roberts/324052/41 "2005-09-30T19:39:48Z")
> [@Loopydude](#): > > Of course, but unless I’m misinformed, _all judicial nominees_ give evasive answers when pressed on how their personal views on a controversial issue might color adjudication. Not only that, it’s what they _should_ do. I’d like to know what I’m getting with a judge, but you have to admit the obvious: it would not only be a bad idea for them personally to give those opinions, it wouldn’t be good from a judicial standpoint. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2005, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/his-honor-chief-justice-john-g-roberts/324052/42 "2005-09-30T19:44:38Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > What specifically makes Scalia an extremist? Or dare I ask, lest we change the whole subject of this thread…? > > Keep in mind that he was confrimed by vote of 98-0 in the Senate. That doesn’t prove that he’s not an extremist, of course, but it sure as heck suggests that not even one Senator thought so. Did he mislead the Senate about his judicial philosophy? Well, I tend to find any attempt at a strict legal philosophy based upon, among other things, ideologically dubious criteria like retrograde mind-reading extreme in itself (not that Scalia always fits the “originalist” ideal, according to some). Couple that with Scalia’s often inflexible and anachronistic ideology, which oozes through many of his arguments, and which apparently informs his beliefs about the Founders intent (e.g. “govt. derives its authority from God”) seems sufficiently extremist to me to warrant the label. One man’s extremism is another’s moderation, though, so YMMV, I guess. I think Roberts may just be more “humble” than this, as he suggests. I take “humble” to mean a lack of Scalia-esque stridency in his judgements. As for Scalia’s confirmation, I honestly don’t know anything about his nomination hearings. The difference in votes for-or-against between Scalia and Roberts may say as much or more about the times as about either justice. I guess the question I’d have in turn is “Would Scalia get a 98-0 vote today?” I personally don’t think _anyone_ would get a 98-0 vote today. Since Bork and Thomas, I think the process of nominating judges, secretaries, what have you, is now automatically far more contentious, and there aren’t many Colin Powel’s in the running out there. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2005, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/his-honor-chief-justice-john-g-roberts/324052/43 "2005-09-30T20:06:18Z")
Bleh. I meant to type “philosophically dubious”…this place is sloooow today… ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2005, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/his-honor-chief-justice-john-g-roberts/324052/44 "2005-09-30T20:29:46Z")
> [@Loopydude](#): > > Well, I tend to find any attempt at a strict legal philosophy based upon, among other things, ideologically dubious criteria like retrograde mind-reading extreme in itself (not that Scalia always fits the “originalist” ideal, according to some). Actually, Scalia explicitlly eschews that form of originalism, and NEVER fits that “ideal”. His uses a textualist approach to determining original intent precisely because we cannot read the minds of the legistlators who drafted and voted for a given piece of legislation. I won’t send this thread off on another Scalia tangent, but I do think you are basing your judegement of him on an erroneous view of his judicial philosophy. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2005, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/his-honor-chief-justice-john-g-roberts/324052/45 "2005-09-30T21:54:20Z")
Could be. Got a link to a good summary of his judicial philosophy? Maybe a thread here where it’s been hashed out well. And, uh…end hijack. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2005, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/his-honor-chief-justice-john-g-roberts/324052/46 "2005-09-30T22:20:17Z")
> [@Cliffy](#): > > Technically, he’s not Chief yet. He still needs to receive his commission (I assume the Secretary of State still issues them) and be sworn in. But there’s no real chance of there being any hiccoughs in that process. Technically, as I read _Marbury v. Madison_, he doesn’t need to receive his commission, it just has to have been made. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2005, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/his-honor-chief-justice-john-g-roberts/324052/47 "2005-09-30T22:33:27Z")
> [@Loopydude](#): > > Could be. Got a link to a good summary of his judicial philosophy? Maybe a thread here where it’s been hashed out well. > > And, uh…end hijack. 😉 [This one got a little messy, but it’s a start.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=334993) Confirm end of hijack. Roger and out. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2005, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/his-honor-chief-justice-john-g-roberts/324052/48 "2005-10-01T03:00:40Z")
> [@Loopydude](#): > > I guess the question I’d have in turn is “Would Scalia get a 98-0 vote today?” I personally don’t think _anyone_ would get a 98-0 vote today. Since Bork and Thomas, I think the process of nominating judges, secretaries, what have you, is now automatically far more contentious, and there aren’t many Colin Powel’s in the running out there. While this seems to be true to an extent, it only seems true for Republican nominations so far. Stephen Breyer was confirmed by an 87-9 vote. Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s vote was 96-3. These votes in favor were just as overwhelming as the Scalia vote, for practical purposes. This indicates that Republican senators at this time viewed their role in the conformation process very differently than Democrats then and now. They seemed to concentrate on qualifications at this level, and ignored judicial philosophy as a consideration. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2005, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/his-honor-chief-justice-john-g-roberts/324052/49 "2005-10-01T03:10:15Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > This indicates that Republican senators at this time viewed their role in the conformation process very differently than Democrats then and now. They seemed to concentrate on qualifications at this level, and ignored judicial philosophy as a consideration. Those noble, noble guys. I’m sure they didn’t do the smart thing, either. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2005, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/his-honor-chief-justice-john-g-roberts/324052/50 "2005-10-01T12:43:55Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > While this seems to be true to an extent, it only seems true for Republican nominations so far. > > Stephen Breyer was confirmed by an 87-9 vote. Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s vote was 96-3. These votes in favor were just as overwhelming as the Scalia vote, for practical purposes. > > This indicates that Republican senators at this time viewed their role in the conformation process very differently than Democrats then and now. They seemed to concentrate on qualifications at this level, and ignored judicial philosophy as a consideration. Oh, Mr. Moto. Caught you being ignorant. Let me help you. The reason Roth Bader Ginsburg was approved so overwhelmingly is because Clinton had a policy of allowing the Republican leadership to vet his nominees PRIOR to nominating them. No nasty surprises for the Republicans, see? I’ll bet Breyer was confirmed overwhelmingly for the same reason. I’ll also bet the current advise and consent process would be VERY different in Bush did the same thing Clinton did. But of course he’s a stupid, arrogant asshole and doesn’t. You may now apologize to the board for being so wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Honesty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f04885/32.png) [@Honesty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Honesty)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2005, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/his-honor-chief-justice-john-g-roberts/324052/51 "2005-10-01T15:49:35Z")
> [@Airman Doors](#): > > Obama voted with the bubbleheads against a qualified candidate that was confirmed overwhelmingly. Yeah, I’d say that’s enough to make me take a hard look at him, and it’s certainly enough to allow me to form an opinion. [Why Obama did not vote for Roberts](http://obama.senate.gov/press/050922-remarks_of_senator_barack_obama_on_the_confirmation_of_judge_john_roberts/index.html) - Honesty ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2005, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/his-honor-chief-justice-john-g-roberts/324052/52 "2005-10-01T22:33:10Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > Oh, Mr. Moto. Caught you being ignorant. Let me help you. The reason Roth Bader Ginsburg was approved so overwhelmingly is because Clinton had a policy of allowing the Republican leadership to vet his nominees PRIOR to nominating them. No nasty surprises for the Republicans, see? I’ll bet Breyer was confirmed overwhelmingly for the same reason. > > I’ll also bet the current advise and consent process would be VERY different in Bush did the same thing Clinton did. But of course he’s a stupid, arrogant asshole and doesn’t. > > You may now apologize to the board for being so wrong. Define vet, and tell us exactly how it worked. Because clearly the Republicans asked many, many questions of her which she refused to answer so there were indeed unknowns. Same thing with Roberts. But, as we all know, not answering questions is S.O.P. ever since the Democrats Borked Bork. For all this cry over “litmus tests”, it’s the Democrats who are the party who have one-- say _Roe v Wade_ should be overturned about you’re out. Even though many legal scholars, including plenty on the left, agree that that decision was poorly argued. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2005, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/his-honor-chief-justice-john-g-roberts/324052/53 "2005-10-01T22:54:46Z")
> [@Honesty](#): > > [Why Obama did not vote for Roberts](http://obama.senate.gov/press/050922-remarks_of_senator_barack_obama_on_the_confirmation_of_judge_john_roberts/index.html) > > - Honesty Interesting that he came right out and said: > [@Senator Obama](#): > > There is absolutely no doubt in my mind Judge Roberts is qualified to sit on the highest court in the land. Moreover, he seems to have the comportment and the temperament that makes for a good judge. So, Roberts is qualified, but Obama will vote against him. 😕 Obama goes on to say that most justices, across the political spectrum, which reach the same decision 95% of the time, and in the 5% of cases where things aren’t quite so obvious: > [@Senator Obama](#): > > …the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge’s heart. A justice is supposed to go by his gut feel? He’s supposed to use his emotional response as an indicator of what the law is? When the going gets tough, the tough get in touch with their inner feelings? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2005, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/his-honor-chief-justice-john-g-roberts/324052/54 "2005-10-01T23:37:07Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Define vet, and tell us exactly how it worked. Because clearly the Republicans asked many, many questions of her which she refused to answer so there were indeed unknowns. Same thing with Roberts. But, as we all know, not answering questions is S.O.P. ever since the Democrats Borked Bork. Glad to clarify. I think a cite would be more useful here. [Here’s an article describing how Clinton worked with Republicans on judicial nominees.](http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=7623) Nothing LIKE this from Bush, is there? Are you going to tell me that if Bush went through similar procedures with the Dems, their votes wouldn’t be different? You know they would. ---
**Author:** ![Frostillicus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Frostillicus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frostillicus)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2005, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/his-honor-chief-justice-john-g-roberts/324052/55 "2005-10-02T02:42:39Z")
Mr. “I’m a uniter, not a divider” is the most partisan president we have had in a long time. He would rather invest in solar energy than consult with or appoint to a key position (say inspector general to oversee the rebuilding of New Orleans) a member of the Democratic Party. (And no, Zell Miller doesn’t count.) ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2005, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/his-honor-chief-justice-john-g-roberts/324052/56 "2005-10-02T03:40:13Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > Glad to clarify. I think a cite would be more useful here. [Here’s an article describing how Clinton worked with Republicans on judicial nominees.](http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=7623) Nothing LIKE this from Bush, is there? Are you going to tell me that if Bush went through similar procedures with the Dems, their votes wouldn’t be different? You know they would. Got an unbiased source with an analysis? Or shall I counter with some analysis from National Review? You could very well be right about Clinton’s process, I’d just like to see a straight up analysis from a source w/o an agenda. And there’s also the small matter of the Republicans controlling the Senate while Clinton was in office, so he would have \*\*had \*\*to handle things differently if he wanted to get anything done. When you have Senators who say what Obama said and still won’t vote against the guy, I frankly don’t see what purpose consultation would serve. It boggles the mind. If he doens’t like the guy’s politics, then just come out and say so. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2005, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/his-honor-chief-justice-john-g-roberts/324052/57 "2005-10-02T03:57:48Z")
> [@Honesty](#): > > [Why Obama did not vote for Roberts](http://obama.senate.gov/press/050922-remarks_of_senator_barack_obama_on_the_confirmation_of_judge_john_roberts/index.html) > > - Honesty Yeah, it’s what I thought. He wouldn’t vote for Roberts bacause Bush nominated him. He practically blows the guy but laments the fact that Roberts didn’t take away his ability to judge by telling the whole world how he would rubber stamp everything. :rolleyes: He’s joined the ranks of the bubbleheads all right. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2005, 6:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/his-honor-chief-justice-john-g-roberts/324052/58 "2005-10-02T06:16:51Z")
I must protest. I think the criticisms of Sen. Obama’s decision are unfair. Here is what he said: > [@](#): > > I want to take Judge Roberts at his word that he doesn’t like bullies and he sees the law and the Court as a means of evening the playing field between the strong and the weak. But given the gravity of the position to which he will undoubtedly ascend and the gravity of the decisions in which he will undoubtedly participate during his tenure on the Court, I ultimately have to give more weight to his deeds and the overarching political philosophy that he appears to have shared with those in power than to the assuring words that he provided me in our meeting. Obama clearly states that he is concerned about how Roberts might rule on the small minority of cases that may, nonetheless, have a significance disproportionate to their number, because the law is not sufficiently clear to provide independant guidance. As the judge must rule somehow, it is the meaning they bring to the bench that literally shapes law for the future. It is the scenerio where strict originalist or textualist (or whatever it’s called) philosophy is simply insufficient. What would Roberts do? That is Sen. Obama’s quandry. I see _nothing_ in his statement that would suggest he has chosen to vote against confirming Roberts merely out of partisanship, merely because he is a Bush nominee. Quite frankly, consider that a willfully ignorant and patantly partisan statement, given the clear content of Obama’s explanation. Sen. Obama is clearly saying that while he has no doubt Roberts is Supreme Court caliber, he has considered the available evidence more convincing than Roberts’ vague reassurances, and concluded Roberts will likely rule on the sorts of cases Obama cares about most in an unacceptable manner. He expresses deep respect for his colleagues who do not share his fears, and clearly expresses hope they are unfounded (as do I). He also rips Sen. Leahy’s detractors on the Left, and makes a highly principled request: > [@](#): > > I was deeply disturbed by some statements that were made by largely Democratic advocacy groups when ranking member Senator Leahy announced that he would support Judge Roberts. Although the scales have tipped in a different direction for me, I am deeply admiring of the work and the thought that Senator Leahy has put into making his decision. The knee-jerk unbending and what I consider to be unfair attacks on Senator Leahy’s motives were unjustified. Unfortunately, both parties have fallen victim to this kind of pressure. > > I believe every Senator on the other side of the aisle, if they were honest, would acknowledge that the same unyielding, unbending, dogmatic approach to judicial confirmation has in large part been responsible for the kind of poisonous atmosphere that exists in this Chamber regarding judicial nominations. It is tempting, then, for us on this side of the aisle to go tit for tat. > > But what I would like to see is for all of us to recognize as we move forward to the next nominee that in fact the issues that are confronted by the Supreme Court are difficult issues. That is why they get up to the Supreme Court. The issues facing the Court are rarely black and white, and all advocacy groups who have a legitimate and profound interest in the decisions that are made by the Court should try to make certain that their advocacy reflects that complexity. These groups on the right and left should not resort to the sort of broad-brush dogmatic attacks that have hampered the process in the past and constrained each and every Senator in this Chamber from making sure that they are voting on the basis of their conscience. _My_ scales have tipped, however slightly, for Roberts myself, but the concerns about Roberts Obama raised are legitimate and serious ones, and his eloquent and principled call for gravity and conscience in making a decision as monumentally important as confirming a Supreme is, in my estimation, deserving of the term “statesmanly”. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2005, 6:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/his-honor-chief-justice-john-g-roberts/324052/59 "2005-10-02T06:39:57Z")
> [@Loopydude](#): > > I see _nothing_ in his statement that would suggest he has chosen to vote against confirming Roberts merely out of partisanship, merely because he is a Bush nominee. Quite frankly, consider that a willfully ignorant and patantly partisan statement, given the clear content of Obama’s explanation. Really? You quoted the relevant part yourself: > [@](#): > > But given the gravity of the position to which he will undoubtedly ascend and the gravity of the decisions in which he will undoubtedly participate during his tenure on the Court, **I ultimately have to give more weight to his deeds and the overarching political philosophy that he appears to have shared with those in power** than to the assuring words that he provided me in our meeting. So Obama thinks he is exceptionally qualified and will be an excellent judge in the future, but declines to vote for him because of “the overarching political philosophy that he appears to have shared with those in power”, i.e. the Bush Administration. So yeah, a reasonable person would see that he refused to vote for Roberts because he’s Bush’s boy. If he wanted to say that he could have just gotten to the point instead of hiding it inside all of the knob polishing. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2005, 6:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/his-honor-chief-justice-john-g-roberts/324052/60 "2005-10-02T06:58:04Z")
> [@Airman Doors](#): > > So yeah, a reasonable person would see that he refused to vote for Roberts because he’s Bush’s boy. If he wanted to say that he could have just gotten to the point instead of hiding it inside all of the knob polishing. Well, Obama was referring in no small part to documents produced a long before Bush was President, so the issue obviously isn’t limited to the fact that he’s a Bush nominee. If you tried to actually apprehend what he wrote , the issue is a concern he won’t rule to protect the weak from the abuses of the rich and powerful. That’s a problem the Bush administration has in spades, but what Obama is clearly citing can date back as far as the Reagan years. Apparently, he found the “just doing the job they asked me” explanation unconvincing, which is not unreasonable. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/his-honor-chief-justice-john-g-roberts/324052.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/his-honor-chief-justice-john-g-roberts/324052.md?page=4)