Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

Roberts’s judicial restraint

This article nicely summarizes Jon Roberts’s record on the D.C. Court of Appeals. A couple of snippets:

"He’s a conservative. He’s not an extreme ideological conservative," said Thomas Goldstein, founder of Goldstein & Howe, a District-based law firm that specializes in Supreme Court cases. "He’s what I would call a federal-power conservative. I don’t think he’s a states-rights conservative, and I don’t think he’s an anti-government conservative. And this may reflect his time in the executive branch."

Bradford Berenson, who worked in the White House counsel’s office from 2001 to 2003, was among those whose recommended that President Bush put Judge Roberts on the first slate of candidates for appeals court slots.

He said Judge Roberts is "not the kind of judge you can predict based on the identity of the parties" or by the politics of the litigants.

"He wants to find the right answer, and he will go where the law takes him," Mr. Berenson said. "He’s an ump who calls the balls and strikes as he sees them."

Mr. Berenson said it is impossible to know how Judge Roberts would approach Supreme Court precedent were he to be confirmed to the high court.

"But everything we know about him thus far suggests he is rather more reluctant to do that than some of the more aggressive conservative judges," Mr. Berenson said.

Read the whole thing.

Discussions - 1 Comment

That is distressing. What is the point of having a ’federal power’ conservative versus a democrat appointee? Can the government still take our houses and give it to somebody else who might do better with it?

"...he will go where the law takes him" but what if the law takes him to someplace that is unjust? Will he say no or will he say that it is okay that the law is used to an unjust end? If it is the latter then he is going to be a terrible supreme court judge.

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: