Chief Justice Roberts Warns Against Politicized Confirmation Hearings

TUCSON, Ariz. — U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts said he is troubled by the increasingly politicized nature of the Senate judicial confirmation process.

During a question-and-answer session Wednesday after an address at the University of Arizona's law school, Roberts was asked whether growing partisanship in the confirmation process poses a significant threat to the independence of the judiciary.

"The courts as a whole are very concerned about partisanship, politicization, seeping into the judicial branch," he said.

Roberts said he thought he was treated fairly during his confirmation hearings, receiving "significant support from both sides of the aisle. But that's not always the case, and what do we do about it?

"I think we need to have a broader recognition that we are not part of the political process, that we are not representatives of either an administration or a confirming Senate on the court," Roberts added. "Your perspective on everything changes the moment you take the judicial oath."

Roberts' lecture focused on his predecessor, the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist.

Roberts called Rehnquist one of the two or three most significant Supreme Court chief justices in history _ responsible for a "seismic shift" away from political science and public policy "to the more solid grounds of legal arguments" in case presentations before the court.

"Today, for the first time in its history, every member of the court was a federal court of appeals judge before joining the court _ a more legal perspective and less of a policy perspective," Roberts said.

Roberts was named to the high court in September 2005 to succeed Rehnquist. He gave the college's third annual Rehnquist Center Lecture.

Roberts said that during Rehnquist's 33-year tenure on the Supreme Court, he argued 39 cases before him. "Each of those arguments was a lesson, sometimes a hard one in lawyering," he said.

Comments

[bronceye]

Roberts is a result of what he condemns.

[springsm]

When one has an ego bigger than life, this one does not even see himself. How in the world does he think he got his job. Easy questions and Senator Specter...good grief Mr. Roberts, you wouldn't be where you are without partisan ideology and fundamentalist religious views. You need to walk on main street now and again. What a phony you are.

[blueskybigstar]

Impeach this b a s t a r d. Why didn't he say anything about this when the Republicans were running things?

This is conduct unbecoming of a justice. You will have to search very far back for a justice making such statements in public against another party. Obfuscate as much as you want, but this was a partisan at tack. The Supreme Court is not supposed to be an activist court and making political statements against the change that people voted for in the political process that he is supposed to uphold is not only out of his role, but counter to it. The fact that Bush literally stole two elections and was not a legitimate president should rescind and repeal every appointment, every decree, every obstruction, every veto that Bush ever made. Has anybody seen the new position on search and seizure the Supreme Court has taken since he joined? I wonder if he is saying this because action will have to be taken against Alito who had illegal beforehand access to questions the approval committee was going to ask him because they were a product of the felony of theft. This should be coming out within the month. Alito also lied on a resume which is against the law and should disqualify him from what is supposed to be the honorable service of truth and justice at its highest level.

[LJB1977]

Where was he warnings when Sen. Frist threatened the "nuclear option" on the confirmation of judges? Dear Cheif Justice - I am not certain that it is your constitutional right to express concern of any type to the US Senate. I think your job is to decide weither legislation is in violation of the Constitution. Also, Sir, I don't recall you being concerned about the political nature of the Supreme Court in selecting our President in 2000. Oh, I know you weren't on the Court then, but you were "around", weren't you? So, go back to your bench and do your job and we will respect you for that, maybe. Otherwise - we don't really want to hear from you!

[Annieke]

According to someone who only joined the Supreme Court based on his ideologies and a partisan support in the Senate.

If he was really troubled about that at the time, he should he declined the offer because he was only supported by one side of the aisle.

Hypocrite man.

[Twopennygal]

What a crock! His appointment and confirmation were sooooo partisan. Just another repug calling the kettle black!

[springsm]

He needn't worry for a long long time...Bush set that Court up to make sure that there would not be a just court for years. So I hope to gosh it is partisan, I hope Obama gets a chance to put in some creative thinkers who follow the constitution, that do not belong to the Federalist Society and who are not funamental in any way. You know, somewhat progressive. Whatever..whomever, however..Roberts is sitting on the righteous right and he still will have a 5-4 vote. Good grief.

[grf67]

For a bright man, he has not been paying very close attention.

[edwcorey]

NOW this puppet-head complains? He's in good company with Clarence Affirmative Action Got Me This Job Now I'll Burn The Ladder Thomas.

[dax49]

like the type that got him his job- what a hypocrite

[JenMI]

Let's have just a little more whining from the right....

[PatCroft]

Oh tell us about it Mr. Chief Justice whom perjured himself in front of all of us Americans and the Judicial Nominating Committee during his nomination hearings.

There is no creditability nor honor in his tenure.

[protagonia]

Like a sandcastle fearing the coming tide.

[jacqmac]

It must really bother him that he was SECOND CHOICE after Harriet Meirs! And also that he was singled out as one of the TWO that President Obama would NOT have even considered for HIS court.

[BlueDog1]

I agree with him, limit there time to ten years in the court and see if he will sign on board, sure he will..........................

[shirleyfeeney]

huh? wasn't it partisan when Bush and Bush appointed their cabinets? AND YOU?!

*eyeroll*