John Roberts the Ideal Pick

John G. Roberts is the perfect choice to take William Rehnquist's place as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. He is charismatic, moderate, and disarmingly good-humored. From 1980 to 1981 he served as Rehnquist's clerk. Center-right Rehnquist would come to be a mentor to Roberts, and many of Roberts' early legal opinions would be formed by the time spent with the man he is now appointed to replace.There is no question that Roberts has the legal experience to be a successful justice. The American Bar Association Committee on Federal Judiciary, made up of 15 sitting Federal judges, voted unanimously to give him a rating of "well qualified," the highest rating possible. But Judge Roberts is exactly the sort of Justice President Bush promised he would appoint during the election campaigns - a true conservative. Judge Roberts is not that which social conservatives both fear and wish Bush to appoint, a "judicial activist." If Judge Roberts has made anything clear during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings, it is that he does not seek to change the status quo of our judicial system dramatically. He is a judicial minimalist, neither taking the reactionary strict constructionist views of Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, nor wishing to fabricate entirely new rights of our Constitutional fabric.

If Roberts were merely appointed to be an associate justice, this judicial philosophy would be more than enough to earn the approval of the mainstream of the American people and the Senate. But as Chief Justice, Roberts will have to lead the Supreme Court in making decisions. It is his interpersonal skills, unrivaled on the sitting court, that will make his career as Chief Justice a historical one. His amicable attitude makes him a far better choice than elevating the gruff Justice Scalia to the post. Roberts is the perfect choice to convince the other Justices to agree on a point, thereby reducing the number of controversial 5-to-4 decisions that hurt the credibility of rulings.

Though Roberts is perhaps the least controversial choice that President Bush could have made, in today's charged political atmosphere there are some that would make rhetorical mountains out of molehills when it comes to Roberts' points of view. Many liberal interest groups are unable to accept that, short of choosing a so-called "liberal" judge, Roberts is the best nomination they can expect from a Republican President. The opposition's unwillingness to accept a remotely conservative nominee and its insistence at chasing after mere wisps and shadows of doubts about Roberts qualification hurts only itself. This stubborn resistance to a moderate candidate, stemming from petty partisan politics, is historically unprecedented. Indeed, seven out of the nine sitting Justices on last year's court were appointed by Republicans (Ginsberg and Breyer are the two exceptions, having been appointed by Clinton).

There is some unknown factor to be found in any nominee; Justices Anthony Kennedy and David Souter, probably the two most liberal justices on the Court, were appointed by President Reagan and Bush, Sr., respectively. Not knowing every detail of a nominee's judicial philosophy is not a valid reason to withhold support from their confirmation.

Not only is the opposition to Judge Roberts historically unprecedented and illogical, the concerns raised by it are on many counts ludicrous. The most serious resistance to his confirmation revolves around memos written during his tenure at the Reagan Administration's Justice Department. These memos were written literally half of Robert's lifetime ago. They represent the views of a young and intemperate lawyer swept up in a national wave of conservatism. In many cases, Roberts has affirmed under oath in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee that he no longer agrees with the often-times rash views of those memos.

Ultimately, Roberts will probably follow in the footsteps of his predecessor, Chief Justice William Rehnquist. He will be a moderate conservative, perhaps rolling back some of the abuses of the Commerce clause perpetrated by Congress. He will unite the Court behind his viewpoint, perhaps even better than the also talented and articulate Rehnquist was able to.

The appointment of Roberts will not destroy the rights of women or minorities, nor will it change the balance of liberals and conservatives on the court. The Roberts Court will carry on the legacy of the respected Rehnquist Court, and that is a great thing for America.