(no subject)
I am a member of the American Bar Association. One of the benefits of membership is the receipt each week of the ABA eReport. It has entertaining columns and interesting articles. This week, of course, the lead article was about the new Supreme Court nominee. Here, for your reading pleasure, is the text of the article, which I found to be interesting.
JUDGING ROBERTS
High Court Nominee’s Rep Ranges from ‘Lawyer’s Lawyer’ to ‘Superhottie’
BY MOLLY McDONOUGH
Divisive. Arch conservative. Well-liked. Rock star.
These are all descriptions that could be used to characterize John Glover Roberts Jr., who on July 19 was nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court.
So far, reactions to the nomination have been anywhere from laudatory to skeptical. Most consider his credentials impeccable. But his ideological meter will be hard to read because he hasn’t left much of a paper trail.
Since Roberts has been on the bench for only 20 months, examining his jurisprudence may not be illuminating.
Yet the ABA and plenty of interest groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Lambda Legal, will give it their best shot.
Even before President George W. Bush made his announcement Tuesday night, the ABA’s Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary was prepared for the nomination.
Chair Thomas Z. Hayward Jr. of Chicago busied himself organizing the committees that will conduct a nationwide peer review. Investigators will scour each judicial circuit, conducting confidential interviews about the judge’s integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament. Teams of law school professors have been assigned to examine Roberts’ written work, and a team of Supreme Court practitioners will do the same.
This was done on a smaller scale when Roberts was nominated to the appellate court and ultimately rated "well-qualified" by the ABA. Each member of the standing committee will once again be asked to rate the nominee as either "well-qualified," "qualified" or "not qualified."
Roberts has his special-interest detractors, but to many he is known as a "lawyer’s lawyer" who built a reputation as a top-tier appellate advocate before taking a seat on the federal appellate court in Washington, D.C.
He’s a darling of the judiciary, court watchers and judicial fanatics-even earning the distinction on the popular blog Underneath Their Robes as one of the top five "male superhotties of the federal judiciary."
"If the [Supreme Court] judges got to vote for John, it would be unanimous because they all think the world of him," says Richard Garnett, who clerked for Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist in 1996.
Roberts clerked for Rehnquist, too, only 15 years earlier. (If Rehnquist remains on the court, it would be the first time a justice and his protégé sat together on the high court.) Garnett says Roberts set a standard that other clerks were expected to emulate.
That may explain part of why he is well-liked at the court. But most of the admiration comes from his appellate advocacy. Roberts has argued nearly 40 cases before the Supreme Court.
"When I was clerking, Roberts was one of the real marquee guys," Garnett says. "All the clerks would sort of drop what they were doing to go watch him argue."
Garnett says there hasn’t been a justice with such a strong appellate advocacy record since Thurgood Marshall, who spent three decades perfecting his appellate advocacy arguing primarily civil rights cases.
"It was kind of like he was a rock star," Garnett says of Roberts, while acknowledging he may be biased because he’s "a Supreme Court law geek." Garnett adds that Roberts "was famous for his preparations. He was never lawyering on the fly."
But Garnett is hardly Roberts’ only fan. When he was nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, a letter bearing 156 signatures from lawyers in the D.C. bar was sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee on his behalf. Signatories comprised a broad bipartisan group, including C. Boyden Gray, White House counsel to President George H.W. Bush; the late Lloyd Cutler, White House counsel to presidents Carter and Clinton; and Seth Waxman, Clinton’s solicitor general.
Roberts was born Jan. 27, 1955, in Buffalo, N.Y. He moved to Northwest Indiana when he was in second grade after his father took a management job at Bethlehem Steel.
No one seems prouder about Roberts’ nomination than La Lumiere School, the Catholic boarding school near LaPorte, Ind., where Roberts prepared for his distinguished Ivy League track record. The school’s Web site prominently features his photograph and biographical information about his academic, leadership and athletic distinctions. By the time he graduated at the top of his 25-member class in 1973, Roberts was co-captain of the football team, co-editor of the school paper and active in wrestling, drama and student council.
Chicago plaintiffs lawyer Mark E. McNabola was a few years behind Roberts but remembers his reputation well.
"When I got there, there was one name I heard over and over again about the person you should try to emulate. That was John Roberts," McNabola says.
After excelling in prep school, Roberts went on to Harvard College where he took only three years to earn a degree in history. He stayed in Cambridge for law school, serving as managing editor of Harvard Law Review and graduating magna cum laude in 1979.
He landed a clerkship with 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Henry Friendly then went on to clerk for then-associate Justice William H. Rehnquist in the 1980-1981 term. Roberts stayed in Washington, working first as a special assistant attorney general at the Justice Department, then as an associate counsel to President Reagan from 1982 to 1986 before entering private practice. He returned to government work as a deputy solicitor general from 1989 to 1993.
An early nomination by President George H.W. Bush to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit stalled in committee then died during the Clinton years. In the meantime, Roberts married fellow Washington, D.C., lawyer Jane Sullivan, also 50, and a partner at Pillsbury Winthrop. The couple has since adopted two children, Jack, 4, and Josie, 5.
Roberts was back in private practice when President George W. Bush revived his nomination to the D.C. Circuit two years ago. This time, his nomination sailed through the committee by a 16-3 vote, and on May 8, 2003, he was confirmed by the Senate by a unanimous vote.
During his government service and while at his firm, Hogan & Hartson, Roberts built a reputation as a zealous advocate for his clients. Some of that advocacy is already haunting him. Critics point to the fact that Roberts signed onto an amicus brief in a 1991 Supreme Court abortion funding case, Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173. Roberts will undoubtedly be questioned again about this statement in the brief: "We continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled."
But Craig Bradley, another Rehnquist clerk alumnus who got to know Roberts during law clerk reunions, says the fact that the brief states the Justice Department’s position at the time doesn’t say much about what Roberts thinks personally on the issue. "He was working in the Justice Department, and that was the Justice Department’s position," Bradley says. "You either write the brief or quit."
"He really doesn’t come across as an ideologue," adds Bradley, who teaches constitutional law at Indiana University School of Law-Bloomington.
Bradley also points out that just because Roberts is a former Rehnquist clerk doesn’t mean he’s an ideological clone of Rehnquist.
"It’s more likely than not that he’s pretty conservative," Bradley says. "But there’s conservative and there’s conservative. My hope will be that he will be in the mold of [Justice Sandra Day] O’Connor and conservatives who have concern for precedent. There’s no sign that he’s a right-wing firebrand."
Pepperdine University law professor Douglas Kmiec says Roberts is "a welcoming personality" who ought to weather the confirmation process well.
"It’s not going to be a Bork hearing, not a battle royale," Kmiec says. "I think John will be forthright where the office permits him to answer questions."
©2005 ABA Journal
JUDGING ROBERTS
High Court Nominee’s Rep Ranges from ‘Lawyer’s Lawyer’ to ‘Superhottie’
BY MOLLY McDONOUGH
Divisive. Arch conservative. Well-liked. Rock star.
These are all descriptions that could be used to characterize John Glover Roberts Jr., who on July 19 was nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court.
So far, reactions to the nomination have been anywhere from laudatory to skeptical. Most consider his credentials impeccable. But his ideological meter will be hard to read because he hasn’t left much of a paper trail.
Since Roberts has been on the bench for only 20 months, examining his jurisprudence may not be illuminating.
Yet the ABA and plenty of interest groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Lambda Legal, will give it their best shot.
Even before President George W. Bush made his announcement Tuesday night, the ABA’s Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary was prepared for the nomination.
Chair Thomas Z. Hayward Jr. of Chicago busied himself organizing the committees that will conduct a nationwide peer review. Investigators will scour each judicial circuit, conducting confidential interviews about the judge’s integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament. Teams of law school professors have been assigned to examine Roberts’ written work, and a team of Supreme Court practitioners will do the same.
This was done on a smaller scale when Roberts was nominated to the appellate court and ultimately rated "well-qualified" by the ABA. Each member of the standing committee will once again be asked to rate the nominee as either "well-qualified," "qualified" or "not qualified."
Roberts has his special-interest detractors, but to many he is known as a "lawyer’s lawyer" who built a reputation as a top-tier appellate advocate before taking a seat on the federal appellate court in Washington, D.C.
He’s a darling of the judiciary, court watchers and judicial fanatics-even earning the distinction on the popular blog Underneath Their Robes as one of the top five "male superhotties of the federal judiciary."
"If the [Supreme Court] judges got to vote for John, it would be unanimous because they all think the world of him," says Richard Garnett, who clerked for Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist in 1996.
Roberts clerked for Rehnquist, too, only 15 years earlier. (If Rehnquist remains on the court, it would be the first time a justice and his protégé sat together on the high court.) Garnett says Roberts set a standard that other clerks were expected to emulate.
That may explain part of why he is well-liked at the court. But most of the admiration comes from his appellate advocacy. Roberts has argued nearly 40 cases before the Supreme Court.
"When I was clerking, Roberts was one of the real marquee guys," Garnett says. "All the clerks would sort of drop what they were doing to go watch him argue."
Garnett says there hasn’t been a justice with such a strong appellate advocacy record since Thurgood Marshall, who spent three decades perfecting his appellate advocacy arguing primarily civil rights cases.
"It was kind of like he was a rock star," Garnett says of Roberts, while acknowledging he may be biased because he’s "a Supreme Court law geek." Garnett adds that Roberts "was famous for his preparations. He was never lawyering on the fly."
But Garnett is hardly Roberts’ only fan. When he was nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, a letter bearing 156 signatures from lawyers in the D.C. bar was sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee on his behalf. Signatories comprised a broad bipartisan group, including C. Boyden Gray, White House counsel to President George H.W. Bush; the late Lloyd Cutler, White House counsel to presidents Carter and Clinton; and Seth Waxman, Clinton’s solicitor general.
Roberts was born Jan. 27, 1955, in Buffalo, N.Y. He moved to Northwest Indiana when he was in second grade after his father took a management job at Bethlehem Steel.
No one seems prouder about Roberts’ nomination than La Lumiere School, the Catholic boarding school near LaPorte, Ind., where Roberts prepared for his distinguished Ivy League track record. The school’s Web site prominently features his photograph and biographical information about his academic, leadership and athletic distinctions. By the time he graduated at the top of his 25-member class in 1973, Roberts was co-captain of the football team, co-editor of the school paper and active in wrestling, drama and student council.
Chicago plaintiffs lawyer Mark E. McNabola was a few years behind Roberts but remembers his reputation well.
"When I got there, there was one name I heard over and over again about the person you should try to emulate. That was John Roberts," McNabola says.
After excelling in prep school, Roberts went on to Harvard College where he took only three years to earn a degree in history. He stayed in Cambridge for law school, serving as managing editor of Harvard Law Review and graduating magna cum laude in 1979.
He landed a clerkship with 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Henry Friendly then went on to clerk for then-associate Justice William H. Rehnquist in the 1980-1981 term. Roberts stayed in Washington, working first as a special assistant attorney general at the Justice Department, then as an associate counsel to President Reagan from 1982 to 1986 before entering private practice. He returned to government work as a deputy solicitor general from 1989 to 1993.
An early nomination by President George H.W. Bush to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit stalled in committee then died during the Clinton years. In the meantime, Roberts married fellow Washington, D.C., lawyer Jane Sullivan, also 50, and a partner at Pillsbury Winthrop. The couple has since adopted two children, Jack, 4, and Josie, 5.
Roberts was back in private practice when President George W. Bush revived his nomination to the D.C. Circuit two years ago. This time, his nomination sailed through the committee by a 16-3 vote, and on May 8, 2003, he was confirmed by the Senate by a unanimous vote.
During his government service and while at his firm, Hogan & Hartson, Roberts built a reputation as a zealous advocate for his clients. Some of that advocacy is already haunting him. Critics point to the fact that Roberts signed onto an amicus brief in a 1991 Supreme Court abortion funding case, Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173. Roberts will undoubtedly be questioned again about this statement in the brief: "We continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled."
But Craig Bradley, another Rehnquist clerk alumnus who got to know Roberts during law clerk reunions, says the fact that the brief states the Justice Department’s position at the time doesn’t say much about what Roberts thinks personally on the issue. "He was working in the Justice Department, and that was the Justice Department’s position," Bradley says. "You either write the brief or quit."
"He really doesn’t come across as an ideologue," adds Bradley, who teaches constitutional law at Indiana University School of Law-Bloomington.
Bradley also points out that just because Roberts is a former Rehnquist clerk doesn’t mean he’s an ideological clone of Rehnquist.
"It’s more likely than not that he’s pretty conservative," Bradley says. "But there’s conservative and there’s conservative. My hope will be that he will be in the mold of [Justice Sandra Day] O’Connor and conservatives who have concern for precedent. There’s no sign that he’s a right-wing firebrand."
Pepperdine University law professor Douglas Kmiec says Roberts is "a welcoming personality" who ought to weather the confirmation process well.
"It’s not going to be a Bork hearing, not a battle royale," Kmiec says. "I think John will be forthright where the office permits him to answer questions."
©2005 ABA Journal