Roberts stresses court precedent

As widely expected, Judge John Roberts held his ground Tuesday and declined to answer a range of questions put forth by members of the Senate judiciary committee.

Nominated to be the next chief justice of the United States, Roberts spent the second day of his confirmation hearings patiently deflecting questions from Senate Democrats on abortion rights, presidential powers during wartime and the scope of federal anti-discrimination statutes.

"I need to decide those questions with an open mind, on the basis of the arguments presented, on the basis of the record presented in the case and on the basis of the rule of law, including the precedents of the court," Roberts said, responding to a question from Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del.

While he steadfastly refused to offer an opinion about Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision establishing a constitutional protection for abortion, Roberts said there should be a high threshold for overruling court precedents.

"I do think that it is a jolt to the legal system when you overrule a precedent," he said. "Precedent plays an important role in promoting stability and evenhandedness."

Still, he left open the possibility that certain cases could be reversed, even at the expense of stability.

"There are situations when that's a price that has to be paid."

Roberts repeatedly emphasized the limited role of the judiciary, asserting that judges must simply decide the cases before them.

But from 1982 to 1986, Roberts played an active role in advocating policy in the Reagan White House.

Throughout Tuesday's lengthy hearings, Roberts was asked to clarify memos and briefs written during his tenure as a lawyer in the White House counsel's office.

Lawmakers from both parties have been poring over thousands of pages of documents in search of clues to the nominee's thinking about a host of legal issues.

But acting as a lawyer for the administration, Roberts said, he had to put aside personal views.

"I was promoting the views of the people for whom I worked," he said.

In one memo cited by Sens. Biden and Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., Roberts argued for a narrow interpretation of Title IX, the federal law outlawing gender discrimination in federally funded education programs.

"Of course gender discrimination is a serious problem," he told Biden. "It's a particular concern to me, and always has been."

He refused to say whether the memo - which argued that Title IX applied only to college admissions for students receiving financial aid and not to all programs within a university - reflected his own personal view.

"Senator, I was a staff lawyer. I didn't have a position. The administration had a position."

There was at least one issue about which Roberts was comfortable admitting a change of heart.

Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wisc., brought up a memo in which Roberts voiced support for the idea of term limits for federal judges.

"You know, that would be one of those memos that I no longer agree with, Senator," Roberts said, providing one of the hearing's lighter moments. "I didn't fully appreciate what was involved in the confirmation process when I wrote that."

The sometimes contentious exchanges between the nominee and members of the committee were a sign that senators are taking their obligations seriously, said UNC-Chapel Hill law professor William Marshall.

"I think what they'll want to do is send a signal to the American people that there is a lot at stake here."

With the Supreme Court playing a key role in questions of national policy, a change in its makeup could have far-reaching effects.

"The country is split 50-50, the court is split 50-50," Marshall said. "There's no question we are at an important historical moment."

 

Contact the State & National Editor at stntdesk@unc.edu.