July 20, 2005
Is John Roberts Good for Christians?
In addition to the comment posted by Jay, John C. Roberts has made the following comments on the record regarding abortion:
"We continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled." - Roberts, in a 1991 Supreme Court brief he co-wrote for the first Bush administration, while he was principal deputy solicitor general.---
"The statement in the brief was my position as an advocate for a client." - Roberts, explaining the brief during his 2003 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on his nomination to a federal appeals court.
---
"Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. It's a little more than settled. It was reaffirmed in the face of a challenge that it should be overruled in the Casey decision. Accordingly, it's the settled law of the land. There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent, as well as Casey." - Roberts, during the confirmation hearing, when asked for his own views on Roe v. Wade.
---
"I don't think it's appropriate for me to criticize it as judicial activism. ... My definition of judicial activism is when the court departs from applying the rule of law and undertakes legislative or executive decisions." - Roberts, during the confirmation hearing, on whether Roe v. Wade was judicial activism.
Roberts has distanced himself from pro-life comments on more than one occasion in the past by noting that he was arguing on behalf of a "client" (the U.S. government). I would also like to note that there is a significant paucity of public statements by Roberts on key issues that are important to Christians (homosexuality, schooling, religion in the public square, abortion, etc.) Republican presidents have appointed such question marks in the past, including John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, and most recently David Souter (appointed by Bush Sr.). Without exception, these picks have been very hostile to the culture of life and Christian values in general. All of them voted to protect abortion.
So what is the point? Only this: remain in much prayer over the President's choice, that God would control the outcome of the confirmation process (up or down) in a way that will result in the selection of a justice who would faithfully apply the law of the land and protect this nation from the unjustice of the culture of death.
In Christ,
Dave
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Dave,
Roberts is described as a Catholic. Although that doesn't really mean much any more . . . if it ever really did . . .
Otherwise it would seem that Roberts a blank slate. He has been careful or lucky to avoid making splashes on major issues. We won’t know what his views really are until he issues his first decision. This could be very good or very bad. One thing is sure he will be careful to say the “right” things to get the seat.
I love how the editors of the National Review put it, “Our own view is that the chief qualification for a justice is a commitment to the rule of law. The rule of law entails predictable, because rule-bound, judicial decisions. It entails respect for the intentions of the sovereign people who ratified the Constitution and who ratified the amendments to it: If what they ratified needs to be changed, change should occur through a lawful process of amendment rather than judicial revision. It entails some respect for precedent, but does not confuse the stability of the Court’s jurisprudence with fidelity to the Constitution.”
This is a radically different view than O’Conner’s opinion in Casey, and is exactly what we need in a justice. I hope we get it.
In Christ,
Thomas
