Roberts in the Supreme Court

Amid the rightful indignation around the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan etc… one might reasonably wonder whether the race for the Supreme Court really makes that much of a difference. If you ask me, it makes more difference now than perhaps ever before.

The Chief Justice of the United States holds a vital position within the legal and administrative system in that country (see, for example, Leadership and the Supreme Court by Robert Steamer). It is indeed for that very reason that he is referred to as the Chief Justice of the United States as opposed to of the Supreme Court: his role is to usher the Court through turbulent and calm times retaining always the independence of the judiciary, the role of the Courts and the values of the Constitution and the Rule of Law as paramount considerations. Therefore President Bush’s very recent announcement that John Roberts is his nominee for the position of Chief Justice causes justifiable concern among many – even more-so than when he was nominated as an Associate Judge.

The Chief Justice plays two particularly important roles: he presides over Presidential and Vice-Presidential impeachment, and (when in the majority) writes the majority judgment or nominates an Associate Justice to do so. Following on from the recent events in the United States and, indeed, the concerns around misleading the public and congress (and the United Nations) in relation to the justifications for the War in Iraq, breaching international law etc… it would be surprising if wide-spread calls for impeachment were not heard within a reasonable amount of time.

It is quite clear that there is at least a question mark over George W Bush’s capacity to carry out the role of President in a manner that is legal, responsible, democratic and reasonable. It would be naïve to imagine that the White House is unaware of this potential for impeachment and that this would not play a role in the nomination of the Chief Justice: Roberts is a long-time supporter of the Bush family and Second Bush Administration.

He was Deputy Solicitor General in the first Bush Administration (1989-1993), during which time he acted in 39 major Supreme Court cases, winning 25. Bush Senior nominated him to the Supreme Court for the District of Columbia but no Senate vote was held before Bush lost the next Presidential election to Clinton. Then he advised Jed Bush, Governor of Florida, in light of the 2000 General Election (reportedly as to how Florida could name Bush Jnr as the winner in the poll).

He received judicial appointment in January 2003, to the Supreme Court for the District of Columbia, and while on that bench he presided over the controversial case of Hamdan (PDF) in which he held that the Geneva Conventions gave no rights to individuals that were justiciable in the courts and that detainees in the War on Terror could be tried in military courts. This decision, of course, greatly assisted the President in retaining as few legal barrier to protracted detention as possible and removed that old problem of international law.

Article Author: Fiona de Londras

Visit Fiona de Londras's author page — Fiona de Londras's Blog