by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright September 14, 2005
All Rights Reserved.

emonstrating commanding legal and social skills, Chief Justice nominee John G. Roberts Jr. weathered heated interrogation by some Democratic senators during three days of confirmation hearings. Confirming the partisan nature of the hearings, Republican senators refrained from asking tough questions, spending more time, for the most part, heaping praise on the 50-year-old Indiana native. More impressive than his legal savvy was Roberts' formidable Teflon skills, proving, if nothing else, that he gleaned the essence from his ex-boss, the late President Ronald Reagan. Roberts remained unflappable, answering questions on controversial social and legal topics, including Roe v. Wade, the Civil and Voting Rights Acts, privacy rights, interstate commerce and a host of other issues. Roberts even won over some of his most passionate critics.

      Roberts' high-profile critics, including Sens. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.), spent their 30-minutes making political statements, debating technicalities about abortion and civil rights. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) cited Roberts' 1982 memo disagreeing with a 5-4 Supreme Court ruling granting the children of undocumented aliens the right to public education. Asked directly by Durbin whether he still agreed with that dissent, Roberts artfully equivocated, agreeing that he accepted the ruling under stare decisis—judicial precedent. Roberts admitted education was a good thing yet refused to pass judgment on the dissenting opinion. Durbin and his Democratic colleagues found little reassurance in Roberts' personal philosophy, refusing to pigeonhole himself as a conservative, acknowledging siding, at times, with Democratic appointees.

      Roberts disarmed his opposition, responding cheerfully to questions, free from the kind of defensiveness when conservative ideologue Judge Robert Bork faced the committee in 1987. Roberts had no compunction using the “Ginsberg rule,” refusing to elaborate on his personal views on the grounds it might prejudice future court decisions. What frustrated some Democrats was the clever way Roberts evaded specific answers, refusing to share the internal logic on which he might base future decisions. “I do think it is a jolt to the system when you overrule a precedent,” Roberts said, responding to Judiciary Chairman Sen. Alan Specter (R-Pa.), reassuring critics that he wouldn't easily reverse landmark decisions like Roe v. Wade. Roberts wouldn't elaborate on his views about the unborn child or, for that matter, end-of-life issues raised by the Teri Schiavo case, again invoking the “Ginsberg rule.”

      All advanced hype before the hearing placed Roberts well to the right of the ideological spectrum. Unlike Bork, Roberts judicial track record gave few clues into his voting propensities or personal views. Throughout the hearings, it became abundantly clear that Roberts' ideology revolved more around the principles of judicial conduct than political philosophy. Time and again, he refused to allow Democrats to stereotype him, insisting that his judicial actions don't reflect personal views but rather a methodical analysis of legal arguments as applied to existing law. “The ideal in the American justice system is epitomized by the fact that judges . . . wear the black robes,” said Roberts, elaborating that proper impartiality prevents judges from injecting personal views. Response after response displayed his reluctance to disclose deeply personal and private personal views.

      Let there be no mistake, Roberts was several jumps ahead of pointed questions about settled case law, showing not only outstanding preparation but a facile ability to think on his feet. He wasn't rattled by the senate's most provocative activists. “I am deeply troubled by a narrow and cramped and perhaps even a mean-spirited view of the laws that appears in some of your writings,” said Sen. Kennedy, responding to Roberts' opposition to the 1982 renewal of the Voting Rights Act when her worked as a staff attorney in the Reagan Justice Department. Kennedy referred to some 23-year-old memos written while Roberts worked for Reagan's Atty. Gen. Ed Meese. Roberts inscrutable responses rattled Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.). “His answers are misleading, with all due respect,” barked Biden, eliciting a bizarre admission from Specter that Roberts' answers were indeed “misleading.”

      Roberts' grace-under-pressure displayed the exact kind of judicial temperament needed to effectively lead the Supreme Court. Able to take the heat, Roberts showed an uncanny ability to defuse cross-examination, more designed for political theater than to vet his fitness to lead the High Court. Responding to question after question, Roberts allayed concerns from the senate's most liberal critics. “I have to say I have been pleasantly surprised by some of your answers today,” said New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, pleased with Roberts' statement that he respected privacy rights. Former Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillepsie couldn't contain his delight over the “gracious” manner Roberts responded to at times hostile interrogation. Having coached Roberts through the confirmation process, Gillepsie knew his protégé had passed the test and was well on his way.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2005 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.