ConfirmThem

By Marshall Manson Posted in Uncategorized — Comments () / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Lots of stories today about the opening of the Roberts hearing. But the most important clip is the last one -- a commentary from former Solicitor General Ted Olson calling for a fair hearing and fair vote. It's from the WSJ, so you'll need a subscription to the whole thing, but I've pasted an excerpt below. Check back to Confirm Them throughout the day as our team blogs the hearings and the day's events.

Senate To Start Roberts Hearings
Charles Babington and Jo Becker, Washington Post

Roberts Spotlight Falls on Senators, Too
Sheryl Gay Stohlberg, New York Times

Senators Aim to Solve the John Roberts Puzzle
David G. Savage and Richard B. Schmitt, Los Angeles Times

Judging Judge Roberts
Kathy Kiely, USA Today

On Judiciary Committee, the drama's guaranteed
Kathy Kiely, USA Today

Speedy Confirmation Expected for Roberts
Jesse Holland, Associated Press

Battle over US Supreme Court begins in shadow of Katrina
Agence France Presse

Editorial: The Roberts Hearings
Washington Post

Editorial: Roberts' past vs. U.S. future
USA Today

New Criticisms Aimed at Roberts
Peter G. Gosselin, Los Angeles Times

Backers, foes await Roberts hearings
Charles Hurt, Washington Times

Historic Stage Will Host Roberts' Hearings
Laurie Kellman, Associated Press

Roberts' opinions hit close to home for senators
Charles Hurt, Washington Times

Commentary: Shall We Dance?
Manuel Miranda, Opinion Journal

Commentary: John Roberts Deserves A Dignified Hearing
Ted Olson, Wall Street Journal (Subscription Required)
Excerpt:

As many of Judge Roberts' predecessors have explained, including, most recently, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, it is ill-advised for a candidate for judicial office to express a formulated position on even the most fundamental questions that might later come before the Court. It may be expedient for a nominee to express support for Brown v. Board of Education or Marbury v. Madison or to reject the Dred Scott decision. Nearly everyone would nod approvingly, at least in the abstract. But where do such answers lead, and where does the pandering end? The simple fact is that there is no principled line to draw once a nominee starts down that seductive slope.

The most appropriate response to these questions is for the nominee to promise an open mind in every case, receptivity to the arguments of counsel, the views of colleagues and due respect for the written text, history, precedent, context and factual setting of a particular matter. And he should promise to render future decisions free from preconceived or pre-expressed opinions as to how a case should be decided. We expect no less from a judge; and that is the only response we should expect to hear during confirmation proceedings. Anything else bargains away future judicial independence.

As to the memoranda John Roberts wrote as deputy solicitor general, they are sensitive, deliberative analyses of cases pending at the time, inseparable from memoranda written by career Justice Department personnel. They candidly evaluate the positions taken or urged by government lawyers, comment on judicial decisions, and evaluate the strengths of the government's case. They are developed with the expectation that they will remain confidential. In Judge Roberts' case, they may even contain assessments of the justices with whom he may soon be serving. Failure to protect the integrity of these materials will not only damage the public interest in top-flight government lawyering, but will forever inhibit future officials from frank internal assessments of litigation strategy.

Solicitors-General for Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Clinton and both Bushes have firmly emphasized the vital importance of protecting the confidentiality of these records. No partisan impulse motivated the uniform public expression of that position, and there is no justification for breaking with that tradition. The price for doing so will be paid by every future president -- and the nation.

The Senate confirmation process should be conducted with the same dignity, restraint and professionalism that we expect from judges. Before the commencement of the impeachment trial of President Clinton, over which he was to preside, Chief Justice Rehnquist gathered members of Congress before him. He had only two words of advice: "Be fair." That simple yet wise admonition should dictate the tone of the Senate's confirmation of his successor.