Liberals and Conservatives Remain Worlds Apart on Roberts's Suitability
By ROBIN TONER and DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
Published: September 16, 2005
WASHINGTON, Sept. 15 - In a sharp clash of worldviews, liberal advocates warned Thursday that confirming Judge John G. Roberts Jr. as chief justice of the United States would threaten hard-won progress on civil rights and women's rights, while conservatives countered that he was clearly committed to equal justice under law.
On the final day of Judge Roberts's confirmation hearings, liberals were arrayed in full force before the Senate Judiciary Committee: civil rights leaders, leading feminists and reproductive rights advocates, all warning about the importance of the court in the lives of average Americans.
In one emblematic moment, Representative John Lewis, the Georgia Democrat severely beaten during the civil rights movement, told the committee that he feared a Roberts court would "no longer hear the people's cries for justice," and no longer act as a "sympathetic referee" because of his philosophy of judicial restraint.
Conservatives argued that Judge Roberts was thoroughly in the mainstream of civil rights law.
Peter S. Kirsanow, a Republican member of the United States Commission on Civil Rights, applauded Judge Roberts for arguing against "unlawful racial quotas or racial set-asides untethered to a showing of discrimination." Mr. Kirsanow said Judge Roberts supported the "bedrock principle of treating people on the basis of merit, without regard to race or sex."
More generally, conservatives argued that the nominee embodied the conservative view that the law should be a neutral arbiter - an umpire, as Judge Roberts put it consistently - not an instrument for changing public policy.
Judge Roberts presented himself as committed to the law above all else in his final round of questioning Thursday morning. Trying to reassure wary Democrats, he said, "I'm not an ideologue." He added, "And you and I agree that's not the sort of person we want on the Supreme Court."
For all the intensity, conservatives were keenly aware that the debate was largely symbolic. Republicans, who control the committee and have a 10-vote majority in the Senate, are confident that the Roberts nomination is on a glide path.
The Judiciary Committee will vote on Judge Roberts's nomination next Thursday, and the full Senate will take it up the following week. The biggest political question, at the moment, is how many Democrats Mr. Roberts will get.
Several key Democrats, signaling the likelihood of a party-line vote in committee next Thursday, said Judge Roberts had yet to show his values and core commitments, beyond his commitment to the legal process.
Senators Charles E. Schumer of New York and Dianne Feinstein of California both said they were haunted by the question, "What kind of justice will John Roberts be?"
Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, pressed Mr. Roberts on whether there was any client he would not represent in his years as a lawyer. Would he have aided either side in a suit challenging a state constitutional provision on the ground that it restricted gay rights, for example?
Mr. Roberts, who assisted gay rights advocates in such a suit, replied, "I probably would have," saying that a lawyer should not sit in judgment of his client.
Mr. Durbin responded, "If this is just a process, a legal process and you'll play for any team that asks you to play, it raises a question about where would you draw the line, if you would ever draw the line?"
He said, "All of us are trying to get down to, what are your core values?"
Republican senators responded that Democrats were simply creating a new standard for judging a nominee who was clearly more than qualified - a point driven home Thursday by the American Bar Association, which pronounced Judge Roberts "well qualified."
Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, said, "Nobody can question your intellect, because it would be a question of their intellect to question yours, so we're down to the heart."
Mr. Graham added, "If we go down this road of putting people's hearts into play, and the only way you can have a good heart is, 'Adopt my value system,' we're doing a great disservice to the judiciary."
The challenge to Judge Roberts's values was perhaps most pointed in a panel on civil rights. Wade Henderson, executive director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, said that a strong federal role was key to enforcing civil rights for more than a century. Judge Roberts, Mr. Henderson said, repeatedly advocated a more restricted, limited federal role on civil and voting rights during his years in the Reagan administration.
nytimes.com |
