Roberts promises to keep 'open mind'

The Senate Judiciary Committee is deeply divided.
CHICAGO TRIBUNE
WASHINGTON -- Pledging to confront every case with an "open mind," Supreme Court nominee Judge John G. Roberts Jr. said Monday he would listen to the "considered views" of his colleagues and be vigilant in protecting the court's independence and integrity if confirmed as the nation's 17th chief justice.
In opening remarks on the first day of hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Roberts said he had "no agenda ... no platform," but instead a commitment to judge fairly, "according to the rule of law without fear or favor."
He emphasized that he saw a limited role for courts and said judges should approach their work with modesty and humility. He used a baseball analogy: Judges are like umpires, calling balls and strikes.
"They make sure everybody plays by the rules, but it is a limited role; nobody ever went to a ballgame to see the umpire," Roberts said. "Judges have to have the humility to recognize that they operate within a system of precedent shaped by other judges equally striving to live up to the judicial oath."
Day of formality
Roberts' comments, made without notes, came at the end of a day of formality, as senators gave prepared remarks in the Beaux-Arts splendor of the Russell Senate Office Building's Caucus Room. The hearings are the first in 11 years for a Supreme Court nominee and the first in 19 for a chief justice, but Monday's session was oddly subdued.
With the nation focused on the devastation on the Gulf Coast -- and with a second nomination to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor around the corner -- even some Democrats indicated Roberts' hearings had lost some of their urgency.
Still, opening statements reflected deep divisions in the 18-member committee, not only on Roberts as a nominee, but on the very terms of the debate and the type of responses Roberts should give.
Tough questioning
Although he is widely expected to be confirmed to replace conservative Chief Justice William Rehnquist, that divide suggests Roberts will encounter tough questioning today and Wednesday. It also paves the way for a bitter battle over the replacement for O'Connor, whose vote often determined how the court would rule in controversial, closely divided cases.
"This is a confirmation proceeding, not a coronation," said Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis.
Senators used their opening statements Monday to lay the groundwork for their questions. Most Democrats emphasized the role of the courts in protecting liberty and civil rights, indicating they will focus on civil rights, women's rights, the right to privacy and the scope of federal power.
They also made clear they would keep pressuring the White House to release documents from Roberts' tenure as a political appointee in the solicitor general's office, which represents the U.S. government in cases before the Supreme Court. The White House, backed by previous solicitors general, consistently has refused the documents.
"We can only wonder what they don't want us to know," said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.
Republicans, for their part, initially focused more on the process, drawing lines they thought Roberts should not be required to cross in his answers to senators' questions.
"Just because we are curious does not mean that our curiosity should be satisfied," said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas. "You have no obligation to tell us how you will rule on any issue that might come before you if you sit on the Supreme Court."
Similarities, differences
As Roberts sat impassively, Republican and Democratic senators often talked about the same episode and used the same terms but drew entirely different meanings from them. Senators on both sides, for example, urged Roberts to follow the example set by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in her 1993 hearings.
Republicans noted that she politely refused to answer more than 60 questions on cases that could come before her as a justice. Democrats, on the other hand, saw her testimony as forthcoming, particularly in signaling that she personally supported a woman's right to abortion.
Even commonly used terms came to mean different things. Both sides were highly critical of "activist" decisions by the Supreme Court. But Democrats saw activism in decisions striking down federal laws. Republicans saw activism in decisions on social issues they believed were properly reserved to legislatures.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., told Roberts she believed she had an additional duty to closely examine his views as the only woman on the committee. In her statement, she traced the fight for women's rights dating to the early years of the United States, and she said she would focus on seeing that the "hard-earned autonomy of women is protected."
Roberts' views on abortion are unknown, and, like previous court nominees, he will not discuss his views on the legal reasoning in Roe v. Wade.
Counterpoint
Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., delivered a powerful counterpoint to Feinstein. Coburn became emotional as he discussed the deep ideological divisions in the country and the problems facing the nation. He alluded to Roe, suggesting that the court had usurped the role of legislatures to make important decisions.
"A super-legislator body is not what the court was intended to be," Coburn said. "When I ponder our country and its greatness, its weakness, its potential, my heart aches for less divisiveness, less polarization, less finger-pointing, less bitterness, less mindless partisanship."