Executive Session

EXECUTIVE SESSION

NOMINATION OF JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR. TO BE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, the Constitution gives us a solemn duty when it comes to the confirmation of an individual to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court. While the President is to nominate that individual, it is our duty in the Senate to decide whether to provide our consent.

When it comes to whether Judge John Roberts should be the 17th Chief Justice of the United States, I have little trouble providing mine. Judge Roberts is one of the most accomplished legal minds of his generation. He has argued 39 separate cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, and he served with great distinction for 2 years on the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. He is certainly an eloquent spokesman for the rule of law, and he has received a ``unanimously well qualified'' rating from the American Bar Association, a rating that specifically addresses his openmindedness and freedom from bias and commitment to equal justice under the law.

I will vote to confirm Judge Roberts. I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

I think it might be helpful for us to consider this afternoon what we have learned about Judge Roberts over the past several months.

First, we have learned something about his judicial philosophy. Judges should not make policy. They don't pass laws or implement regulations. Instead, in the words of Justice Byron White, judges simply decide cases, nothing more. Judge Roberts embodies this philosophy.

During our hearing in the Judiciary Committee, he told us:

The role of the judge is limited. A judge is to decide the cases before them. They are not to legislate. They are not to execute the laws.

Time and again he repeated his belief that judges should play a limited and modest role. During the confirmation hearings, he said this to Senator Hatch, Senator Grassley, Senator Graham, Senator Cornyn, and Senator Kohl. He told Senator Kyl:

Judges and Justices do not have a side in these disputes. Rather, they need to be on the side of the Constitution.

Judge Roberts explained his philosophy clearly and, yes, in plain English without using fancy words or resorting to long dissertations. By the end of last week, there was little doubt where Judge Roberts stood.

He believes that judges play a limited and modest role and, to use his own words, ``judges and Justices are servants of the law, not the other way around.''

Second, over the past several months, we have learned that the American people share our view that Judge Roberts will be fair, openminded, and modest as Chief Justice. We need to look no further than the editorial pages of America's papers to know that Judge Roberts has broad support.

The Los Angeles Times put it bluntly:

It will be a damning indictment of petty partisanship in Washington if an overwhelming majority of the Senate does not vote to confirm John G. Roberts, Jr., to be the next Chief Justice of the United States. As last week's confirmation hearings made clear, Roberts is an exceptionally well-qualified nominee, well within the mainstream of American legal thought, who deserves broad bipartisan support. If a majority of Democrats in the Senate vote against Roberts, they will reveal themselves as nothing more than self-defeating obstructionists.

The Washington Post has offered a similar sentiment:

John G. Roberts, Jr., should be confirmed as Chief Justice of the United States. He is overwhelmingly well qualified, possesses an unusually keen legal mind and practices collegiality of the type an effective Chief Justice must have. He shows every sign of commitment to restraint and impartiality. Nominees of comparable quality have, after rigorous hearings, been confirmed nearly unanimously. We hope Judge Roberts will similarly be approved by a large bipartisan vote.

Papers from my home State of Ohio have also given Judge Roberts their approval. The Akron Beacon Journal, a paper that endorsed Al Gore in 2000, and then John Kerry in 2004, called Roberts ``supremely qualified.'' They went on to write:

Judge Roberts is eminently qualified. He has a sharp mind, a sound temperament, and a keen understanding of the collegiality required to run an effective Supreme Court.

According to the Cleveland Plain Dealer:

In selecting a leader for the U.S. courts, intellect and probity are far more important than predictable political philosophy. In the instance of John Roberts, it is difficult to find, even among his most committed opponents, anyone who will deny his intellectual superiority. His ethics are unimpeached. He is, by all measures, a fair mind. There is no reason to doubt that he will make an outstanding Chief Justice.

The Dayton Daily News described Judge Roberts in straightforward terms:

Ya gotta like the guy. Judge John Roberts' 3-day appearance before the Senate was impressive. Facing a Judiciary Committee full of people who obviously consider themselves expert on constitutional issues, he displayed mastery. He was familiar with just about any case the Senators could name. He discussed not only their main thrusts, but their nuances. His decency was as unmistakable as his brilliance and diligence. He bears no ill will toward any group that Democrats in the Senate are concerned about--minorities, women, working people, handicapped people, the poor.

These sentiments in these papers are certainly echoed by many of my constituents. For instance, Eric Brandt from Pataskala, OH, wrote in strong support of Judge Roberts:

The citizens of this State and country deserve a fairminded jurist who does not use the power of the bench to usurp the elected voice of the people.

Robert Hensley from College Corner, OH, made a similar point:

I believe it is imperative we have judges who rule according to our Constitution and not their own beliefs and ideas. I believe John Roberts is such a man.

And Al Law from Perrysburg, OH, had this to say:

We need prudent jurists who understand the proper role of the court, and [Judge Roberts] is such a man.

Clearly, these citizens saw what we saw during the hearings last week. Judge John Roberts is a modest, decent, and fair man who actually fully understands the limited role that judges should play in our constitutional system of government.

Finally, over the past few months, we have heard from those individuals who really know John Roberts the best. His colleagues in the bar, Democrats and Republicans alike, have overwhelmingly supported Judge Roberts' elevation to the Supreme Court.

As I mentioned earlier, the American Bar Association has given Judge Roberts a rating of ``unanimously well qualified,'' its highest possible rating. As Steve Tober, the chairman of the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, explained, Judge Roberts has ``the admiration and respect of his colleagues on and off the bench. And, he is, as we have found, the very definition of collegial.''

We have also heard from Judge Roberts' friends and coworkers and learned that they respect and admire him. Maureen Mahoney, former Deputy Solicitor General of the United States, said Judge Roberts ``is probably the finest lawyer of his generation.'' She described the assistance he provided her in her own career, and testified from her personal experience that he had an enduring commitment to providing equal opportunity to women in the workplace.

Another example, Professor Kathryn Webb, a lifelong Democrat who said that she does not support President Bush, nonetheless said that Judge Roberts has her ``full and enthusiastic support.''

Bruce Botelho, the mayor of Juneau, AK, a self-proclaimed liberal Democrat, offered his full support. The mayor worked closely with Judge Roberts on several cases and described him as ``the most remarkable and inspiring lawyer I have ever met.''

Finally, Catherine Stetson, a partner at Hogan & Hartson and a longtime colleague of Judge Roberts, offered her praise as well. She told us how Judge Roberts helped her transition back into the workplace after the birth of her first child. According to Stetson, Judge Roberts supported her in both of her roles as lawyer and as mother, ``and he did it quietly and without fanfare.'' She explained how Judge Roberts was instrumental in helping her become a partner at Hogan & Hartson, despite the unfounded concerns of others that her obligations as a new mother might interfere somehow with her ability to do the job.

All of these individuals have something in common. What they have in common is they know Judge Roberts personally. They have seen him handle cases. They have seen him deal with clients. They know him as an individual. They know him as a human being. They have worked with him. Each one of them supports his nomination to be the next Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

It is true that we have heard comments and some testimony from well-intended individuals who oppose Judge Roberts, but I must say these individuals do not know Judge Roberts the way Maureen Mahoney does, they did not work with him the way Mayor Botelho has, and they have not dealt with Judge Roberts on a day-to-day basis the way Catherine Stetson has.

To be sure, over the past several months we have learned a great deal about who John Roberts is. We know about his extraordinary professional accomplishments. We have seen the overwhelming bipartisan support that he has earned from his colleagues in the legal profession. We have heard from John Roberts himself in a very eloquent defense of the rule of law. For all of these reasons, I will vote to confirm Judge John Roberts as the 17th Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, and I certainly urge my colleagues to do the same.

I yield the floor.

http://thomas.loc.gov/