By: E&P Staff The nation's newspapers started weighing in on President Bush's selection for the U.S. Supreme Court late Tuesday night. Here are the first samples, with more to be added:
The Boston Herald
Roberts has a reputation as an intellectual heavyweight. That he was a graduate of Harvard and Harvard Law School ought to not only add some heft to his resume, but win him support among the senators of even this bluest of blue states....As for the inevitable whining from some Senate Democrats, well, there's that inconvenient fact that Bush did win the election.
The Washington Post
In nominating Judge John G. Roberts Jr. to the Supreme Court, President Bush picked a man of substance and seriousness. Judge Roberts has served only briefly on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, but he was previously among the country's best-regarded appellate lawyers, both in private practice and as deputy solicitor general during the administration of George H.W. Bush.
Judge Roberts is a conservative, but he has never been an ideological crusader; he has admirers among liberals. If confirmed as the successor to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, it is likely that he will shift the Supreme Court toward the right. But his nomination is not a provocation to Democrats -- as some other possible nominees would have been. Mr. Bush deserves credit for selecting someone with the potential to attract broad support.
This is not to say that Judge Roberts's nomination will proceed without controversy. At least one of his opinions since joining the D.C. Circuit raises a concern about his views of the balance of power between the federal government and the states. In that case, Judge Roberts intimated that he might take a very narrow view of the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce -- the constitutional foundation of much of modern federal law.... Senators will need to explore whether he envisions a dramatic revision of federal power.
The reality, however, is that nobody really knows what Judge Roberts believes, because he has been unusually careful about not discussing his views....a substantial picture of the nominee will require a serious and dignified confirmation process....The Senate needs to make sure that a fair, open and substantive confirmation process takes place even amid the noise.
The Huntsville (Ala.) Times
Bush used TV's prime time to announce his first Supreme Court nominee. There is much more TV to come.
Chicago Tribune
Some Americans will be disappointed that Bush didn't choose a woman or a Hispanic in the interest of diversity. That's a reasonable sentiment and one that will probably play a bigger role if another vacancy opens up. No appointment, unfortunately, can meet every need. But the Supreme Court always needs outstanding legal minds. In Roberts, it would get exactly that.
The New York Times
If he is a mainstream conservative in the tradition of Justice O'Connor, he should be confirmed. But if on closer inspection he turns out to be an extreme ideologue with an agenda of stripping away important rights, he should not be....
One of the most important areas for the Senate to explore is Judge Roberts's views on federalism -- the issue of how much power the federal government should have. The far right is on a drive to resurrect ancient, and discredited, states' rights theories. If extremists take control of the Supreme Court, we will end up with an America in which the federal government is powerless to protect against air pollution, unsafe working conditions and child labor. There are reasons to be concerned about Judge Roberts on this score. He dissented in an Endangered Species Act case in a way that suggested he might hold an array of environmental laws, and other important federal protections, to be unconstitutional.
There are also serious questions about the attitude of Judge Roberts toward abortion rights. As a lawyer in the first President Bush's administration, he helped write a brief arguing that Roe v. Wade should be overturned.
Provo (Utah) Daily Herald
Instead of playing politics, senators would do well to see if Roberts can measure up to O'Connor's stature as a justice who puts the law ahead of political ideology. So far, the record seems to suggest he is a worthy replacement for that distinguished jurist.
Roberts' intellect and judicial temperament are universally respected. He is affable and well spoken -- widely regarded as among the best in presenting oral arguments before the Supreme Court. That attribute will serve him well as he engages senators in the confirmation process.
This was a politically astute appointment by President Bush, and, barring some major gaffe by Roberts, one that will be supported by a substantial majority.
Los Angeles Times
Although some liberal interest groups rush to portray Roberts as a dangerous extremist, his nomination seems to signal a desire on the part of the White House to avoid a nasty confirmation battle....[Roberts' temperament] "may encourage a smooth confirmation process. There is every reason to expect that he will receive an up-or-down vote, as he deserves, by the time the court reconvenes in the fall.
USA Today
Roberts' limited experience as a federal appeals judge ? scarcely two years and about 40 largely non-controversial opinions ? gives few clues as to his legal philosophy. His work as a lawyer for previous Republican administrations and for private clients, though, offers some hints. He made arguments on abortion rights, free speech and church-state issues that are at odds with established law....
Whether such views are within the mainstream of American law and values is very much in doubt. In a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll 10 days ago, for instance, 29% of the public said Roe v. Wade should be overturned; 68% said it should be sustained.
The confirmation process, established by the Founders to make the Senate a co-equal with the president in appointing the judiciary, provides the opportunity to examine Roberts' constitutional philosophy.
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here