John Glover Roberts Essay Example

School.While there, he began a track towards the Supreme Court, which former Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor said led almost inevitably to the court. He was a clerk for his predecessor Chief Justice William Rehnquist and met the woman he was originally nominated to replace when he helped prepare for her confirmation hearings. “The stars must have been aligned that January morning in 1955 when John G. Roberts Jr.

was born in Buffalo, N. Y. , because almost everything thereafter led him straight to the Supreme Court of the U. S. He graduated from Harvard College, and then excelled at Harvard Law School as well as in his work at the U.

 S. Attorney General's office. It was there that our paths first crossed, for he helped prepare briefing papers for my confirmation hearings to the Supreme Court in 1981.He was later a successful litigator and partner at the Washington firm of Hogan ; Hartson. He argued 39 cases in the Supreme Court and was highly regarded as one of the best advocates in the history of the court,” (O’Connor, 2006).

Roberts himself said the right to argue before the court was both humbling and a reminder of what freedom means. “Before I became a judge, my law practice consisted largely of arguing cases before the Court.That experience left me with a profound appreciation for the role of the Court in our constitutional democracy and a deep regard for the Court as an institution. I always got a lump in my throat whenever I walked up those marble steps to argue a case before the Court, and I don't think it was just from the nerves.

” (Roberts, 2005). Roberts had been married for just under a decade when he was nominated to the Supreme Court and those who found his conservative leanings troublesome were confounded by his wife, Jane Sullivan Roberts.Jane Roberts is a fellow attorney whose clients have included the Feminists for Life organization, one of the strongest feminist organizations in the country, and an organization that appears to be in somewhat direct conflict with the portrait of Chief Justice Roberts that many opponents have tried to create. During his confirmation hearings, opponents argued that he would set women’s rights back decades by voting to overturn Roe v. Wade and that his strict constructionalist leanings would lead to a compete changing in the law. Historically speaking, the interesting aspect here is that Roe v.

 Wade and dozens of other decisions, including Brown v. the Board of Education were made during the Warren Court, another time when a conservative chief justice led the court.Earl Warren was the governor of California when President Dwight D. Eisenhower selected him for nomination to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

And, he was elected as a Republican. In fact, in 1952 he ran against Eisenhower for the Republican nomination for the presidency, withdrawing early in the primary process and throwing his support behind Eisenhower.As governor of California, he has endorsed and promoted the removal and internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. He presided over the creation, construction and expansion of many of California’s highways and universities, but no one ever expected him to change the country we live in from its very roots up (Warren 65; “Landmark Cases”).

When Eisenhower nominated Warren, things

were a bit contentious in the United States’ senate for his confirmation hearings. But the process was nothing compared to confirmation hearings that would take place later from Justices like Clarence Thomas and nominees like Harriet Meyers.Among the things discussed in his hearings was a lack of judicial experience as Warren never served on the bench prior to his nomination to the Supreme Court (“Landmark Cases”) another issue was the perceived deal making between Warren and Eisenhower, though it was never proven that there was an explicit deal between them regarding the appointment. In fact, in a letter to his brother, Eisenhower said that he appointed Warren because “he represents the kind of political, economic, and social thinking that I believe we need on the Supreme Court ...

He has a national name for integrity, uprightness, and courage that, again, I believe we need on the Court. " (Letter to Milton Stover Eisenhower, October 9, 1953). “Warren's confirmation for the permanent job was delayed for several months by the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, who was irritated at the White House over unrelated matters. Consequently, the committee—encouraged by southern senators who feared that Warren would help overturn segregation—heard scurrilous ethics charges against him (in one instance from a fugitive from justice) and even prompted an FBI investigation.It also heard from a liberal interest group called the California and National Institute of Social Welfare, which charged that Warren had a "much too casual concern for the American Constitution" and that his "22 year career as a prosecuting attorney" had "habituated him to certain attitudes towards the rights of the individual which render him unfit to be the

custodian of the Constitution of the United States.

" (Witte 1).While Roberts had in fact served on the bench for years, there are some interesting similarities between him and Chief Justice Warren. Both men were viewed as men of personal integrity and worried some opponents for the effect that they would have on the court, but no one expected the way in which Warren would completely change the court. Likewise, it seems likely that Roberts’ affect on the court will be as monumental, though perhaps not for the reasons that his opponents feared.

When he joined the court, many sources quoted former justice Byron White’s statement that every new justice added means that it is effectively a new court (O’Connor, 2006; New York Times, 2005), Predicting that the addition of Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito would radically alter the court. But those making the predictions did so in a very odd manner. They examined the man’s politics and his personal life and even his finances as a way of predicting his rulings on court cases rather than any particularly in depth look at his previous opinions.Strangely, despite his Republican leanings, Roberts had long been viewed with respect by both political parties. “After he was nominated for the Court of Appeals in 2001, a bipartisan group of more than 150 lawyers sent a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

They wrote: "Although as individuals we reflect a wide spectrum of political party affiliation and ideology, we are united in our belief that John Roberts will be an outstanding federal court appeals judge and should be confirmed by the United States Senate. "The signers of this letter

included a former counsel to a Republican President, a former counsel to two Democratic Presidents, and a former -- and former high-ranking Justice Department officials of both parties. ” (Bush, 2005) Looking then to his decisions since joining the court, we can then try to analyze what type of chief justice John Roberts is likely to be. As an activist leader on the court, Earl Warren began making significant impact immediately. “What did not arise openly in the proceedings, however, was the matter of school desegregation.Yet Brown v.

 Board of Education had already been argued before the high court (and in fact before Warren himself), and it would become—within less than three months of Warren's official confirmation—the defining case not only of Warren's tenure but also of twentieth-century American jurisprudence. Nothing in Warren's hearings—that ended with a unanimous confirmation—remotely anticipated the revolutionary qualities of his Court. “(Wittes 1) Warren’s first major national impact would come when he successfully negotiated with all the justices of the court to issue a unanimous decision in Brown v. Board of Education (Cray 116).It has been nearly three years since Chief Justice Roberts was seated in September, 2005, (Supreme Court Biography, 2008) and his impact on the court has been rather diminutive, with the Chief Justice quietly taking a back seat to the rest of the court. In announcing his nomination of Roberts, President Bush said, “Before he was a -- before he was a respected judge, he was known as one of the most distinguished and talented attorneys in America.

John Roberts has devoted his entire professional life to the cause of justice and is widely admired for his intellect,

his sound judgment, and personal decency. (Bush, 2005).Perhaps then it is that integrity and dedication to justice that has prevented the new chief justice from grabbing headlines and authoring controversial decisions. In fact, despite a precedence for the chief justice to write any opinion when he is in the majority, Roberts has authored very few of the courts opinions and allows his fellow justices to write the opinion of the court, even when he agrees with it. Clearly, the fear of opponents that he would reverse many long-standing rulings of the court or even change the direction of the court has been stymied at least temporarily. The vote reflected the gap between many Senate Democrats and the liberal groups that strongly opposed Roberts and are important to the party's base.

Senators in both parties predicted a much more bruising fight over Bush's upcoming choice to succeed centrist Sandra Day O'Connor.Liberal activists said they will expect more spirited opposition from rank-and-file Democrats, but some Republicans said the relative ease of Roberts's confirmation suggests that opponents will find it extremely difficult to block anyone picked by Bush. ” (Babington and Baker, 2005). Among those opposing Roberts were presidential aspirants who typically veer to the center but now are eyeing the liberal activist groups that will play key roles in Iowa, New Hampshire and other early-voting states in 2008.

They included Sens. Evan Bayh (Ind. ), Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.

) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (N. Y. ). Also voting no were two senators facing potentially tough reelections next year in states with powerful left-leaning groups: Maria Cantwell of Washington and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan. Maryland's Democratic

senators voted against Roberts” Babington and Baker, 2005).The addition of Roberts and Alito to the court also marked another change for the Supreme Court.

Every justice had previously served as a federal appellate judge and none had ever held elected office (Greenhouse, 2007). More importantly though was that Roberts knew the court. “The new Chief can bring tremendous changes in the operations of the court, from the way cases are discussed and opinions written to the very guiding ethos and atmosphere. Few have made the transition as seamlessly and effectively as Roberts. He knew our traditions well, as he had clerked in 1980 for then Associate Justice Rehnquist.His sense of humor and articulate nature and calm demeanor combine to make him a very effective Chief.

I'm certain he will serve a long tenure in the role and be an effective leader not only for the Supreme Court but for all the federal courts in the nation” (O’Connor, 2005). With that knowledge, he first affected the cases the court would hear in January 2006 as the court reviewed and chose the cases it would hear that year. In complete agreement with the role, he had claimed for himself, he did not choose to transform the court and relied in large part on the decisions of the lower courts, showing his faith in the system.That does not mean everyone is happy with the new chief justice. “In the 1960s, Chief Justice Earl Warren presided over a Supreme Court that interpreted the Constitution in ways that protected the powerless — racial and religious minorities, consumers, students and criminal defendants. At the end of its first full term, Chief

Justice John Roberts’s court is emerging as the Warren court’s mirror image.

Time and again the court has ruled, almost always 5-4, in favor of corporations and powerful interests while slamming the courthouse door on individuals and ideals that truly need the court’s shelter. ” (New York Times Editorial, 2007).