What our other readers are saying:
What better man to lead the Supreme Court in these times?
Judge John Roberts is like a breath of fresh air in the turgid atmosphere of political Washington. He is extremely intelligent, absolutely knows the law as based on the Constitution. His personality is one of great caring for his fellow man, and with a most level disposition, not inclined to emotional ups and downs. He knows what hard work is and has kept this work ethic all of his life. What better man to lead the Supreme Court in these times!
Marilyn Morris, Huntington, In., USA
'A major victory for moderates'
Roberts's nomination is a major victory for a large contingent of Americans who have been discounted for far too long: the moderates. It would have been imprudent and disconcerting for Roberts to decide how he will vote in a case before he hears it. His silence spoke volumes about his competence, lucidity, and ability to lead the Supreme Court into a new century.
J. Kyle Hughes, Carroll, Iowa, USA
The process is broken
I agree with Roberts's nomination, but the real failure is the nomination process which has become so politicized that the only ones who can pass the gauntlet are those who are adept politicians with a limited track record. Some of the comments critical of Roberts are that he has limited experience, but that is a self fulfiling prophecy because anyone with any experience would be crucified by the interest groups - liberal or conservative - based on any past decisions. And how many people are going to want to subject themselves to such personal and public abuse? The Supreme Court has survived over 200 years without this sort of spectacle and produced some notable characters. What's lost is that the Supreme Court is to be a check and balance, not a body that intiates legislation and laws.
Bob Shaw, New Orleans, La., USA
A bold stroke revoked
The nomination of John Roberts to replace Sandra Day O'Connor was a historically significant move, as a conservative replacement would change the make-up of the court. Changing Roberts' nomination to that of chief justice negates that bold stroke and puts Bush's chance of real judicial reform in jeopardy. The chances now of Bush nominating -- and the Senate confirming -- a true constructionist to the court is effectively nill. Therefore, while politically expedient, this nomination for chief justice nullified most Bush supporters' primary purpose for voting him into office in 2004.
J. W. Truslow, Annapolis, Maryland, USA
'Erudition does not a fit Supreme Court Justice make.'
Roberts would make a great constitutional law professor, but erudition does not a fit Supreme Court Justice make. He did not disclose anything about his judicial philosophy, methodology, or constitutional vision other than his commtiment to the rule of law. That is a noble sentiment, but it tells us nothing about how Roberts would go about finding the law. He made law sound as if it were set, fixed, and discoverable. The problem with that is that the Constitution's language is often ambiguous. Constitutional law has to be defined. There is no rulebook of constitutional construction. Justices cite the Framers as their guideposts, but there is disagreement about which Framers to cite, and we have no official record of what the Framers had in mind. Many of their views conflicted. Finally there is precedent, but most cases come with conflicting precedents, or there is disagreement about the applicability of a precedent or whether precedent should be followed at all.
In all ot this Justices have choices; they have discretion, and what drives those choices are often their own distinct political, philosophical views and their constitutional vision. With Roberts we learned nothing about any of this. Through the task of interpretation judges make law. The public is entitled to know the philosophical mindset of a prospective justice. They will live with the consequences of the Justices' choices and discretion for decades. A lifetime law making appointment should not be bestowed by stealth.
Prof. Gerald E. Kerns, Deerfield Township, Ohio, USA
Positives, but negatives too
I see Roberts's age as positive because he will be there for a while. I see the possible influence of Rehnquist on Roberts as positive if he follows the same course with regard to "state rights". However, I see Roberts's relatively limited experience on the bench as a huge negative. I cannot imagine the President nominating someone for chief justice with so little experience. Most recently, Michael Chertoff of Homeland Security and Mr. Brown of FEMA have demonstrated how disasterous inexperience ih high places can be. Mr. Bush's record of choosing inexperienced loyal fundraisers or party favorites makes Roberts's qualifications suspect.
Dennis Olivarez, Penn Valley, Calif., USA
Confusion in hearings' wake
What emerged at the conclusion of formal hearings on Thursday, Sep 15, left most observers on both the right and left confused as to Roberts’s judicial character. Yes, character, a concept that was carefully avoided by the “brilliant” man who will likely lead the Supreme Court for decades to come.
Roberts revealed only that he is an enigma, beyond normal human emotion and possibly bereft of moral fiber —- the “perfect” attorney who relies solely on The Rule of Law and “precedent” to determine justice. Over and over, to Democrats Kennedy, Feinstein, and Dick Durbin (who was the most savvy of all), Roberts consistently avoided voicing any indication of core values, personal beliefs or human feeling. He is the epitome of Harvard Law, which has created a secular replacement for religion, civility, and basic courtesy in evaluating human trespass.
Both conservatives and progressives are confused, and only history will know the effect Roberts will have on the nation.
MG Patrick, Lake Worth, Fla., USA
Roberts will be 'even-handed'
When all is said and done, there is more precedent for choosing a new Chief Justice from outside the court than from among the present associate justices. Frankly, if she hadn't already announced her retirement, I would have favored Sandra Day O'Connor as Chief Justice.
But given his answers to questions so far (and I don't think he has been less forthcoming than Justice Ginsberg was in her hearings), I believe Roberts will be an even-handed judge. After all, what's sauce for the goose (I didn't hear any Democrats complaining during Ginsberg's confirmation hearings) is sauce for the gander as well.
Philip van Lidth de Jeude, Carrboro, N.C., USA
Too much missing
It is difficult for anyone to say whether or not the nomination of Roberts was a good thing or a bad thing. It seems that there is an intentional absence of information surrounding his positions on any debatable issue. Furthermore, his historical performance is being kept secret. What ever happened to the idea of going to a job interview?
John Barkow, Denver, Colo., USA
An example for the rest of us
Yes, Roberts will be good for the Supreme Court. President Bush has given the country a person who demonstrates the art of civil dialogue. It is crucial to bring our country's standards to a high threshold of respect for each other, for our differences and for a reasoned exchange of opinion. Judge Roberts exemplifies decency, intellect and respect for others. Whether or not that is the role of a Supreme Court Justice, he will serve to inspire many in our nation to exhibit a higher standard of dialogue and thought.
Lois Snitkoff, New York, N.Y., USA
Judicial dynasty?
I questioned the decision to appoint Roberts to chief justice immediately. Not only is there too much connection between Rehnquist and Roberts, leading to the suggestion of a sort of judicial dynasty, but also, it seems more reasonable to nominate one of the existing 7 Supreme Court Justices to the post of chief justice. Someone with experience on the high court would be more logical than a newcomer.
Mary Townsager, Barrington, Ill., USA
Yes to Roberts, but why through Bush?
My question is whether it is wise for John Roberts, with limited experience as a judge, but with extensive political connections, to have accepted the nomination from President Bush. Roberts may be extremely ambitious, but his appointment promises to be stained with its association with an administration whose place in history will be questionable at best. If Roberts is so talented, does he need to climb to the top on the back of such a president? His willingness to do so alone makes me doubt his qualifications.
Robin Eastman-Abaya, Binghamton, N.Y., USA
'Glossing over Roberts's inabilities'
Just as President Bush glossed over crony Michael Brown's inability to head FEMA, he is glossing over Roberts' inabilities. We must remember that in a time of war, speciously decided cases could do incredible future damage to the United States. We need an experienced Chief Justice now, and I think Roberts posesses that capacity.
Chris Thibodeau, Palm Bay, Fla., USA
More power than a first-time justice should wield.
The Chief Justice writes the opinions or designates who writes them. Thereby, the dicta of the court could be farther to the right than the actual decision. Roberts has only been a judge for two years, while many on the Supreme Court have been justices for decades. Elevating Roberts to such a high position is a slap in the face to the other justices.
Sandra Tomlin, Pinole, Calif., USA
'Bush made a wise decision'
Judge Roberts is clearly a brilliant jurist, and well qualified for the position of Chief Justice. Only three of the previous 16 Chief Justices were selected from within the court, and selecting either Thomas or Scalia would create a bitter battle that is unnecessary. Bush made a wise decision.
John Wynn, Chesapeake, Va., USA
Expediency's place
I support his nomination to the Supreme Court, but not as Chief Justice. Those on the Court with more experience should have that position first. Some say President Bush's switching of Roberts's nomination was out of expediency, but I think he should have cast a wider net when making such an important appointment.
Betty York, Olathe, Kan., USA
Will Roberts be his own man?
Because he is being nominated for such an influential possition that he could hold for 30 years or more, I think all documents should be released for inspection. I agree that any refusal to do so gives the impression of something to hide, or that a smoking gun has been found. I hope Mr. Roberts is his own man. He will certainly be the the young kid on the block at the Supreme Court, and the current members may try to take him under wing - to help their own causes.
Ron Brabson, Chester, Penn., USA
Disconcerting...
It is too early to say whether Roberts is a good choice. Certainly Scalia and Thomas have to be disappointed, but they are very controversial. What we don't know yet, and what the Bush Administration may be trying to hide from us, is if there are any unfavorable positions or statements previously made by Mr. Roberts. On the whole, it is somewhat disconcerting that a new Justice can step directly to being Chief Justice. What is that telling the nation?
Clark Wright, Sioux City, Iowa, USA
Who's judging whom?
Yes, Roberts is very well qualified - more qualified than most of the Senators who will be judging him. Ever thought about that?
Leon Gile, Salem, S.C., USA
What kind of nominee do the American people want?
If a person like Roberts is refused a confirmation by the US Senate, I don't know what kind of person Americans want to be on the Supreme Court. Far too many one-issue groups are looking at the law through their little colored lenses - reflections of a me-first mentality masked as people with true social concern. This may be the true reason leading to the decline of the US.
Joe Lin, Tainan, Taiwan
Picking precedents
Anyone can be appointed to the Supreme Court. And, any private citizen can be appointed chief justice. You don't have to have Supreme Court experience to serve as chief justice. In fact, there is a precedent for NOT picking someone already on the Court. For example, Earl Warren was not already on the court when Eisenhower selected him for the position of chief justice. Roberts is an excellent choice.
Michael Towns, Atlanta
'What is there to hide?'
If John Roberts has such an impeccable record, then the Bush administration would have freely released his papers from days gone by. What is there to hide about a lawyer slated to head the highest court in the land? Chief Justice is no place for a newly appointed justice to cut their teeth.
Robert Schultz, Ann Arbor, Mich., USA
Supreme Court should make recommendation
John Roberts' lack of experience cancels out the privilege of leading the Supreme Court as chief justice. It smacks of an "in-your-face" decision by President Bush. The Supreme Court should recommend the chief justice from among the existing justices and send their choice to the President - which he could overrule if he so chooses under law. Courtesy demands that this be done first in an attempt to keep a sense of continuity in the Supreme Court. John Roberts should simply be confirmed as a new member of the court, and another person should be nominated to replace Justice Rehnquist.
Dave Mawdsley, Danbury, Conn., USA
Just what the US needs
This was definitely a wise choice. With both political parties becoming increasingly shrill and emotional, this country greatly needs a jurist of his impeccable credentials, vast intellect, and dedication to the dispassionate rule and role of law.
Ron McCallister, Scottsdale, Arizona, USA
Wise move
It was a wise move, which should stabilize the court when it reconvenes, and give more time to reflect on who else should be nominated to the court. This may cool partisan politics for a while, especially if Sandra Day O'Connor agrees to stay on for at least this next court session.
Wayne Sheridan, Boothbay Harbor, Maine, USA
Too early to tell
Roberts appears to be his own man, but until he is on the bench, who can tell? It was a smart move on Bush's part. He is a political animal, for sure.
Susan C. Dawson, Dallas, Ore., USA
Roberts lacks the Supreme Court experience to be chief justice
Regardless of how I feel about the Roberts nomination generally, he has no experience on the Supreme Court. As chief justice he would be responsible for a great deal of the administration of the court as well as taking the lead on opinions or the assignment thereof. Roberts simply does not have the experience for this.
Robert A. Anderson, Nashville, Tenn., USA
Senate needs access to more information on Roberts
President Bush has intentionally withheld information pertinent to Roberts' past actions, passing on to Congress only those things that Bush thought they should see. That in itself indicates that there is something (or things) that Bush would prefer not to be brought up in the hearings. An appointment of Roberts as chief justice makes these omissions of information even more ominous. Roberts might make a great chief justice, but the Senate that has to confirm him is entitiled to all the information they want and need to make an intelligent decision.
Clark Wright, Sioux City, Iowa, USA
'Good compromise for conservatives'
This is a good compromise for the conservatives. It would be ideal for the far right for Clarence Thomas to recieve the nod. He is currently the youngest justice on the court and would provide a conservative presence for years to come. The perfect scenario for the far left would be for Sandra Day O'Connor to stay on for a year as chief justice. This would give the liberals an opportunity to take a left-leaning chief justice for a little while before (House and Senate) elections could be held; where the liberals would expect to win more seats.
Michael O'Brien, Alexandria, Va., USA