[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 15]
[Senate]
[Pages 20891-20892]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       NOMINATION OF JOHN ROBERTS

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today in support of President 
Bush's nomination of Judge John Roberts to serve as Chief Justice of 
the United States.
  It would be difficult to identify a jurist better qualified for our 
Nation's highest Court than Judge John Roberts. He is a distinguished 
jurist who enjoys broad bipartisan support.
  There is good reason for this broad bipartisan support. Judge 
Roberts' sharp intellect and legal ability are beyond question. In 
addition, his humility, fairness, and open-minded approach to the 
practice of law have won him admirers from across the political 
spectrum.
  During his career as a practicing attorney, Judge Roberts argued a 
variety of positions in a number of high-profile cases and has 
represented criminal defendants, environmental interests, and the State 
of Hawaii in a dispute over legislation meant to favor native Hawaiians 
as a group.
  During the 2001 landmark Microsoft antitrust case before the District 
of Columbia court, he argued on behalf of the Clinton Justice 
Department and a group of primarily Democratic State attorneys general 
that several of Microsoft's business practices violated the Sherman 
Antitrust Act.
  In the landmark 2002 environmental case, Tahoe-Sierra Preservation 
Council v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, he successfully argued 
before the Supreme Court in favor of limits on property development and 
in support of protection of the Pristine Lake Tahoe Basin area.
  Judge Roberts has been described as ``one of the top appellate 
lawyers of his generation'' by the Legal Times, and one of the top 10 
civil litigators by the National Law Journal in 1999.
  Colorado's own Rocky Mountain News offered its unequivocal 
endorsement of Judge Roberts. The Rocky Mountain News stated that 
``Roberts is not only well-spoken, he's tactful, amicable and focused'' 
and ``projects a temperament that should serve a Chief Justice well.''
  I ask unanimous consent to have the full September 17 article printed 
in the Record. 
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             [From the Rocky Mountain News, Sept. 17, 2005]

                     Roberts Rises to the Occasion

       When Chief Justice John Roberts finished his testimony 
     Thursday before the Senate Judiciary Committee--oops! we're 
     getting ahead of ourselves. When the next chief justice 
     finished his testimony, some senators complained they knew 
     little more about him than when the hearings started because 
     he'd dodged so many questions.
       Weren't they listening? Most of us know a lot more about 
     Roberts today than we did a week ago--even though he did, 
     yes, dodge questions about issues that will come before the 
     court. Every one of the current justices once dodged such 
     questions, too.
       We learned, for example, that Roberts is quick on his feet 
     and able to respond with aplomb to questions that in some 
     cases were asinine. Wisconsin Sen. Herb Kohl actually wanted 
     Roberts to explain what role he'd play ``in making right the 
     wrongs revealed by Katrina.'' Roberts politely reminded him 
     that courts are ``passive institutions'' that ``decide the 
     cases that are presented.''
       We learned that Roberts is not only well-spoken, he's 
     tactful, amicable and focused--that he projects a temperament 
     that should serve a chief justice well.
       No, we still don't know how he'll rule on cases related to 
     abortion or the regulatory powers of government under the 
     commerce clause, to cite issues that exercised senators. But 
     learning his views on such matters was never realistically in 
     the cards.
       Our favorite part of his testimony was when he was pressed 
     to explore his analogy between being a judge and a baseball 
     umpire.

[[Page 20892]]

     He said he believed balls and strikes were objective facts 
     even if an umpire isn't always correct in calling them.
       ``I do think there are right answers,'' he explained. ``I 
     know that it's fashionable in some places to suggest that 
     there are no right answers and that judges are motivated by a 
     constellation of different considerations . . . That's not 
     the view of the law that I subscribe to.
       ``I think when you folks legislate, you do have something 
     in mind . . . and you expect judges not to put in their own 
     preferences, not to substitute their judgment for you, but to 
     implement your view of what you are accomplishing in that 
     statute. I think, when the framers framed the Constitution, 
     it was the same thing. . . . And I think there is meaning 
     there and I think there is meaning in your legislation. And 
     the job of a good judge is to do as good a job as possible to 
     get the right answer.''
       That's not a complete judicial philosophy, of course, but 
     it's the start of a good one. And despite the scattered 
     complaints, we suspect a majority of senators recognize it, 
     too.

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, another Colorado newspaper, the Pueblo 
Chieftain, offered its praise for Judge Roberts stating that ``Judge 
Roberts looks like the kind of justice who would apply the Constitution 
as it is written,'' adding ``that's as it should be.''
  I ask unanimous consent to have the full September 8 editorial 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                      [From the Pueblo Chieftain]

                            Altered Calculus

       The death of Chief Justice William Rehnquist over the 
     weekend has altered the calculus of Supreme Court 
     nominations.
       President Bush, who had named Circuit Court Judge John 
     Roberts to fill the seat of retiring Associate Justice Sandra 
     Day O'Connor, withdrew that nomination and renominated him to 
     succeed Justice Rehnquist. It was a logical decision.
       The American Bar Association already has given Judge 
     Roberts, 50, its highest rating. He is well-regarded in legal 
     circles. He's been under a microscope by senators and the 
     media and found to be top-notch. Colorado's own Democratic 
     Sen. Ken Salazar gives Judge Roberts high marks.
       So the Beltway oddsmakers are calling Judge Roberts' 
     confirmation in the Senate a sure bet. That brings into 
     question, then, the president's choice to replace Justice 
     O'Connor, who says she will remain on the bench until here 
     replacement is confirmed.
       During both of his presidential campaigns, Mr. Bush made as 
     one of his key planks restoring the balance on the court away 
     from the liberal, activist mode which became de rigueur when 
     President Eisenhower named Earl Warren (``the biggest damn 
     fool mistake I've ever made'') as chief justice.
       Credit Justice Rehniquist for slowly tipping the balance 
     back during his tenure. But that balance is precarious.
       President Bush will face an unrelenting deluge from 
     liberals saying he should nominate someone from the 
     ``mainstream,'' meaning left of center. These groups would 
     like to derail any Supreme Court nominee who has a 
     conservative bone in his or her body, because it has been 
     only through the liberal courts, not the legislative process, 
     where they have been able to influence public policy.
       Funny, though, but recent elections have shown that the 
     mainstream is not over there in the Beltway/Hollywood 
     liberals' bailiwick.
       And elections mean something. President Clinton named Ruth 
     Bader Ginsburg to the high court, and most Republicans in the 
     Senate voted to confirm her. If President Bush names someone 
     in the judicial philosophical mold of an Antonin Scalia and 
     Clarence Thomas, he would be fulfilling a campaign pledge and 
     helping return the court to its rightful role, not as a de 
     facto legislature but as arbiter of the law and the 
     Constitution.
       Judge Roberts looks like the kind of justice who would 
     apply the Constitution as it is written. And we urge 
     President Bush to nominate another justice with the same 
     inclination.
       That's as it should be.

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I believe Judge Roberts will be an 
advocate and practitioner of judicial restraint, a Justice who focuses 
on a narrow interpretation of the Constitution as the Framers intended. 
In his own words:

       My obligation is to the Constitution. That's the oath.

  I believe he is temperamentally and intellectually inclined to stick 
to the facts and the law in cases that will come before him on the High 
Court, and that he will refrain from attempting to legislate from the 
bench. In his own words, Judge Roberts says:

       The role of the judge is limited . . . [j]udges are to 
     decide the cases before them. They're not to legislate, 
     they're not to execute the laws.

  I also believe Judge Roberts' personal views will not determine the 
outcome of cases before him. In his own words, the ``American justice 
system is epitomized by the fact that judges . . . wear . . . black 
robes. And that is meant to symbolize the fact that they're not 
individuals promoting their own particular views, but they are supposed 
to be doing their best to interpret the law, to interpret the 
Constitution, according to the rules of law--not their own preferences, 
not their own personal beliefs.''
  Judge Roberts recognizes the importance of property rights and the 
role of the legislature in drawing the line in cases of eminent domain. 
Commenting on the Court's recent decision in Kelo, Judge Roberts 
explained:

       What the Court was saying is there is this power, and then 
     it's up to the legislature to determine whether it wants that 
     to be available--whether it wants it to be available in 
     limited circumstances, or whether it wants to go back to an 
     understanding as reflected in the dissent, that this is not 
     an appropriate public use.

  President Bush has sent forward the name of an excellent nominee. His 
qualifications to serve as Chief Justice of the United States are even 
more apparent after his remarkable testimony before the Senate 
Judiciary Committee. Judge Roberts testified for approximately 22 
hours, 10 hours longer than William Rehnquist when he became Chief 
Justice, 5 hours longer than Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and 4 hours longer 
than Stephen Breyer.
  During the course of his testimony, Judge Roberts demonstrated an 
impressive command of the law and understanding of a myriad of legal 
issues. He provided thoughtful and thorough answers to over 500 
challenging questions asked by Senators of both parties.
  Personally, I admire his commitment to maintaining his judicial 
independence and ability to rule fairly by choosing not to prejudge 
cases that are likely to come before him. It is indicative of his 
undying and lifelong commitment to equal protection under the law.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to give him a final vote in support of 
his nomination.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceed to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Vitter). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________