Hearing of Senate Judiciary Committee on Confirmation fo John G. Roberts Jr. as U. S. Supreme Court Justice

Hearing of Senate Judiciary Committee on Confirmation fo John G. Roberts Jr. as U. S. Supreme Court Justice

JUDICIARY COMMITTEE MARK-UP STATEMENT [AS PREPARED]: CONFIRMATION OF JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR.

Mr. Chairman, the Constitution gives us a solemn duty when it comes to the confirmation of an individual to sit on the Supreme Court. While the President is to nominate that individual, it is our duty to decide whether to provide our consent. When it comes to whether Judge John Roberts should be the 17th Chief Justice of the United States, I have little trouble providing mine.

Judge Roberts is one of the most accomplished legal minds of his generation. He has argued 39 cases before the United States Supreme Court. He is an eloquent spokesman for the rule of law. And, he has received a "unanimously well-qualified" rating from the American Bar Association.

I will vote for Judge Roberts. And, I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Let's consider what we have learned about Judge Roberts over the past several months.

First, we have learned about his judicial philosophy. Judges do not make policy. They do not pass laws or implement regulations. Instead, in the words of Justice Byron White, judges "decide cases." Nothing more.

Judge Roberts embodies this philosophy. During the hearing, he told us that "the role of the judge is limited. A judge is to decide the cases before them, they're not to legislate, they're not to execute the laws."

Second, over the past several months, we have learned that the American people share our view that Judge Roberts will be a fair and open-minded Chief Justice.

We need look no further than the editorial pages of America's papers to know that Judge Roberts has broad support. Papers from my home State of Ohio prove the point:

-- The Akron Beacon Journal, a paper that endorsed Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004, called Roberts "Supremely qualified." "As made plain during four days of testimony, Judge Roberts is eminently qualified. He has a sharp mind, a sound temperament and a keen understanding of the collegiality required to run an effective Supreme Court."

-- According to the Cleveland Plain Dealer, "In the instance of John Roberts, it is difficult to find, even among his most committed opponents, anyone who will deny his intellectual superiority. His ethics are unimpeached. His is, by all measures, a fair mind. There is no reason to doubt that he will make an outstanding chief justice."

-- The Dayton Daily News described Judge Roberts in straightforward terms: "Ya gotta like the guy. Judge John Roberts' three-day appearance before the Senate was impressive. Facing a Judiciary Committee full of people who obviously consider themselves experts on constitutional issues, he displayed mastery. He was familiar with just about any case the senators could name. He discussed not only their main thrusts, but their nuances. His decency was as unmistakable as his brilliance and diligence. He bears no ill will toward any group that Democrats in the Senate are concerned about -- minorities, women, working people, handicapped people, the poor."

Clearly, these editorial writers saw the same thing that I saw during the hearing last week. Judge John Roberts is a modest, decent, and fair man, who has earned the title of Chief Justice of the United States.

Third and finally, over the past few months, we have heard from those individuals who know Judge Roberts best.

-- Maureen Mahoney, former Deputy Solicitor General of the United States, testified from her personal experience that Judge Roberts had an enduring commitment to providing equal opportunity to women in the workplace.

-- Bruce Botelho the Mayor of Juneau, Alaska, and a self-proclaimed "liberal Democrat," offered his full support. Mayor Botelho worked closely with Judge Roberts in several cases and described him as "the most remarkable and inspiring lawyer I have ever met."

-- Finally, Catherine Stetson, a partner at Hogan and Hartson offered her praise, as well. Stetson told us how Judge Roberts helped her transition back into the workplace after the birth of her first child. According to Stetson, Judge Roberts supported her in both her roles -- lawyer and mother -- "and he did it quietly and without fanfare."

All of these individuals have something in common. They know Judge Roberts personally. They have worked with him. And, they support his nomination.

True, we have heard from others, who oppose Judge Roberts. But, these individuals do not know Judge Roberts the way that Maureen Mahoney does. They have not worked with him the way that Mayor Bruce Botelho has. And, they have not dealt with Judge Roberts on a day-to-day basis the way that Catherine Stetson has.

We have long known about Judge Roberts' experience, his legal ability, and his modest approach to judging. But it was this personal testimony -- testimony about Judge Roberts, the man -- that gave us the final piece to the puzzle.

Over the past several months, we have learned a great deal about who John Roberts is. We now know about John Roberts, the lawyer; John Roberts, the Judge; and John Roberts, the man. I, for one, like what I see. I will vote to confirm Judge John Roberts as the 17th Chief Justice of the United States, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

http://dewine.senate.gov/