ConfirmThem

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

Thought our readers would be interested in this memo from Leonard Leo, Wendy Long, Jay Sekulow and former Attorney General Ed Meese:

In confirming Judge John Roberts by a vote of 78-22, one thing is certain: no Senator can say that he was unaware that Judge Roberts embraced the principles of judicial restraint. Conservative judicial philosophy was a cornerstone of the President’s announcements when he nominated Judge Roberts to be an Associate Justice and then to serve as Chief Justice of the United States. On numerous occasions during his Senate testimony, Judge Roberts clearly articulated his view that the judge’s role is not the politician’s role: judges must decline to engage in policymaking. This oral testimony—sometimes under intense questioning—was buttressed by many Reagan-era documents revealing Judge Roberts’s strong articulation of those principles as a lawyer in that Administration.

The bottom line is that a very substantial majority of Senators, including an impressive number of Democrats, enthusiastically supported Judge Roberts after hearing his views about the limited role of the Court. The Democrats voting against Judge Roberts made clear that they envision the Court playing an interventionist role in the developing policy, contrary to the role that the Constitution establishes.

The Constitution’s “Advice and Consent� process worked. There was a full and fair debate about whether Judge Roberts possessed the intellect, temperament, and devotion to the Constitution to be on the U.S. Supreme Court. The Senate saw a nominee who was obviously selected by President Bush because he shared the President’s philosophy of judicial restraint. An overwhelming majority accepted the President’s constitutional authority to choose Justices who reflect his judicial philosophy, which was set plainly before the American people during the last two presidential elections.

To be a judicial conservative is to be in the mainstream of American law and politics. Many Senators who voted for Judge Roberts clearly agree with this, including some Democrats. Other Democrats may simply have performed their “Advice and Consent� duty as envisioned by our Founders, who gave the President the duty to select Justices. We hope in future Senate confirmations, the principles of judicial restraint will garner such widespread support that opponents of judicial restraint will be exposed as wanting to turn back the clock to the time of a politicized, agenda-driven judiciary.

For today, we are content to recognize that the overwhelming vote for Judge Roberts’s confirmation should forestall any illusion that a filibuster of Supreme Court nominees who share the President’s judicial philosophy is either a practical reality or a principled response.