10.01.05
John Roberts Confirmed
The confirmation of John G. Roberts on September 29, 2005 to be the 17th Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is great news. He was confirmed by a large majority of 78-22.
This is a huge victory for president Bush and serves to prove that he does not need to pick someone just because it will be easier to get them confirmed. All this talk about finding a “consensus nominee” is ludicrous. The qualifications for being on the Supreme Court do not include popularity, consensus, or their willingness to uphold Roe V. Wade. The single most important qualification for the job of being on the Supreme Court is that he or she adheres to the Constitution. Not France’s laws, or other nations, but America’s founding principles written for all to see. It is not to make law but to interpret the law.
It has become abuntantly clear that the liberal Democrats are going to oppose any judge that president Bush appoints to the Supreme Court. When Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid and their liberal allies said that they would look at John Roberts with an open mind; most of us knew how deceptive that was. I believe that they had to put on the charade and pretend like they were honestly scrutinizing him and trying to learn more about him, but at the end of the day it was a foregone conclusion that they would vote against him.
One of the groups fighting against all Conservative judges is the very liberal group People for the American Way. They continue to put forth the notion that president Bush must pick a “consensus nominee.” Ralph Neas, the president of this organization said, “There are a number of distinguished judges — first appointed to the federal bench by Republican presidents — who would, like Sandra Day O’Connor, likely receive overwhelming bipartisan support to replace her.” They have even gotten to the point of presenting a list of acceptable nominees: Jose Cabranes, Edward Prado, Sonia Sotomayor and Ann Williams. It is the height of ignorance and arrogance to suggest that the president appoint nominees from a selected list. It is the president’s job and responsibility to analyze all qualified candidates that he believes will adhere to the Constitution. Once the president has made his choice it is up to the Senate to vote “yes” or “no” as to whether the candidate is qualified or not. The history of this could not be clearer - Senators have done just that, even if they disagree with their political views or philosophy. When Justice Ginsberg was going through the confirmation process virtually every Republican voted for her even though most of them did not like her point of view. All we ask is for is an up or down vote. We don’t need more mud-slinging and attempts to discredit honorable people.
I do agree with Neas on this statement: “The stakes are particularly high with the replacement for O’Connor, a mainstream conservative who often provided the decisive vote to uphold many rights and protections.” The stakes indeed are very high. President Bush must stick to his campaign promises and pick judges who are in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. So far president Bush has a great track record. I can’t think of any president in my life time that has been so consistent in picking judges who will actually interpret the Constitution instead of legislating from the bench. There have been far too many justices in recent years who have simply made up laws to fit their own personal political agenda.
Congratulations Chief Justice Roberts and Thank You president Bush for keeping your word!