Man Of The Hour
John G. Roberts confounds liberals and reassures conservatives. Wanna fight?
In addition to the footnote calling for Roe to be overturned, Roberts, as principal deputy solicitor general, also argued that the antiabortion group Operation Rescue did not engage in a conspiracy to prevent women from receiving abortions by blockading clinics. As a Supreme Court justice, says Peter Irons, a University of California-San Diego political science professor, "it's pretty clear that he would be caught between his personal views, which I'm sure are pro-life, and his respect for precedent." Roberts's stance wouldn't swing a court that currently supports Roe by a 6-to-3 margin, but it could affect decisions on the procedure opponents call "partial-birth" abortion, parental consent laws, and assisted suicide.
Colleagues familiar with his legal philosophy say Roberts is guided by a firm belief in the limits of federal power. "I see the comparability [with O'Connor] being the strongest on federalism," says Douglas Kmiec, a Pepperdine University law professor. In what's now known as the "Arroyo Toad Case," Roberts pushed the D.C. Circuit Court to review a decision that protected a species of toad in California from commercial development, arguing that the amphibian was not protected by the Endangered Species Act because it, "for reasons of its own, lives its entire life in California." The matter, he wrote, was thus beyond the reach of the federal government. That same philosophy of limited federal power could affect future court rulings on school prayer and public displays of religious symbols. "I think he'd take a more accommodating position," says Kmiec, "toward religion and public life."
Business groups say they're reassured by Roberts's hands-off judicial philosophy and history of defending major corporate clients. Advocating on behalf of Toyota in 2002 while a partner at the Washington firm Hogan & Hartson, Roberts won a Supreme Court case by arguing that the Americans with Disabilities Act didn't protect a woman suffering from carpal tunnel syndrome. He also filed a brief supporting the West Virginia coal industry's practice of mountaintop removal in a lawsuit brought by citizens who claimed the practice damaged their homes. Tom Donohue, the president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, issued a statement hailing Roberts as "well respected."
Backed tribunals. Roberts's legal history on business matters, however, cannot be easily categorized. "Lawyers from firms like [Hogan & Hartson] . . . represent their clients' interests," says Irons, "regardless of what side they're on." A top lawyer at the prestigious white-shoe firm for more than a dozen years, Roberts also argued successfully on behalf of a preservation group fighting to curb development in the Lake Tahoe area.
Roberts's unswerving support for Bush administration policy may provide one of his toughest challenges on Capitol Hill. In July, he joined in the unanimous decision to allow military tribunals for terrorism suspects held at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Roberts also wrote a dissent arguing that Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force records should be kept secret, an opinion upheld by the Supreme Court. Still, he is far from predictable. According to a review posted on the website of Goldstein & Howe, a Supreme Court litigation firm, Roberts agreed with liberal members of the court nearly as often as he sided with conservatives. So just exactly what type of justice Roberts would be is an open question. "The crystal ball," says Irons, "is a little cloudy." Which should keep things interesting--throughout the summer and into the fall.
advertisement
