By Justin Norris,
Senior Staff Writer

Chief Justice nominee to the Supreme Court, John Roberts, sat in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee on September 13 as part of the confirmation process.
When asked about his judicial philosophy, he replied with a baseball metaphor.
“Judges are like umpires. Umpires don’t make the rules; they apply them,” said Roberts.

So is Roberts safe?
Has Bush’s play been called?
Will he make it to the bench?

Although fortune telling is not my line of work, chances are that Roberts will find himself in the middle of eight other black robes, draped by serious national issues with serious impact.
A seasoned lawyer of 26 years, law clerk for two federal judges, staff on the White House Counsel’s office, and a student of the late Chief Justice Rehnquist, he has proven himself worthy of the title.

The U.S. Senate confirmed his 2002 appointment to the District of Columbia Appeals Court, and so it seems he may make it into an even more exclusive country club.

However, one of the problems arising out of Robert’s confirmation is the lack of information the Senate has to review what type of legal precedents he has set.

Only being an appellate judge for the past three years, he has not produced much in terms of addressing important issues, such as the environment, corporations, the first and second amendments, and the constitutional right to privacy--which is a euphemism for abortion rights.
The concern stems from what political science refers to as “activist judges” who pursue a political agenda while sitting on the bench.

One of the largest concerns is the commitment of a future judge to overturn historic landmark cases, such as the 1973 Roe vs. Wade case, which legalized abortion for the entire country.
Activist judges would betray the fair and impartial sanctity of the judiciary and tip over the scales of justice, consequently falling into disuse.

Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter told his colleagues that he believed that Roberts would not turn the Supreme Court into a super legislature handing down important decisions as mandates, particularly when Congress would prove inefficient and slow.

Nonetheless, Roberts has been described as a low-key lawyer who has received much support from the Clinton and Bush administrations, and has many urging him to move up. Most of his interest and service has been affiliated with the government, particularly appeals. His resume is exemplary. There is no question to his talent, yet his experience is minimal.
Aside from the dogged and intensive questioning Roberts will face, he is most likely to receive two thumbs up, despite the fact that he has been quite vague on central issues of concern to Americans such as “constitutional rights to privacy.”

The Harvard-educated lawyer has no strikes against him yet, and it seems that these senatorial umpires will be far from calling him “out.”

To view all articles by this writer Click here.