John Roberts: Encyclopedia II - John Roberts - Jurisprudence

John Roberts - Jurisprudence

During Judiciary Committee hearings on his nomination to the circuit court, Roberts testified about his views on jurisprudence.[18]

John Roberts - The Commerce Clause

[S]tarting with McCulloch v. Maryland, Chief Justice John Marshall gave a very broad and expansive reading to the powers of the Federal Government and explained that — and I don't remember the exact quote — but if the ends be legitimate, then any means chosen to achieve them are within the power of the Federal Government, and cases interpreting that, throughout the years, have come down. Certainly, by the time Lopez was decided, many of us had learned in law school that it was just sort of a formality to say that interstate commerce was affected and that cases weren't going to be thrown out that way. Lopez certainly breathed new life into the Commerce Clause. I think it remains to be seen, in subsequent decisions, how rigorous a showing, and in many cases, it is just a showing. It's not a question of an abstract fact, does this affect interstate commerce or not, but has this body, the Congress, demonstrated the impact on interstate commerce that drove them to legislate? That's a very important factor. It wasn't present in Lopez at all. I think the members of Congress had heard the same thing I had heard in law school, that this is unimportant — and they hadn't gone through the process of establishing a record in that case.[19]

John Roberts - Federalism

During confirmation hearings Roberts assailed Federalism and defended the principle of States' Rights, stating that

[S]imply because you have a problem that needs addressing, it’s not necessarily the case that Federal legislation is the best way to address it...The constitutional limitation doesn’t turn on whether it’s a good idea. There is not a ‘‘good idea’’ clause in the Constitution. It can be a bad idea, but certainly still satisfy the constitutional requirements."[20]

Once on the bench, however, Roberts' favoring of Federalism seems to have come to the fore. In the first major case to be heard after his confirmation to The Supreme Court the state of Oregon presented a challenge to a 2001 directive by US Attorney General John Ashcroft that physician-assisted suicide had no "legitimate medical purpose". The Bush appointee argued that prescribing a lethal drug for purposes of suicide violates the federal Controlled Substances Act and that this federal law trumps Oregon's state law and dismisses the long-held position that medical practices are to be regulated by the states. If enforced by the Bush administration, doctors who give out drugs under the Oregon law could lose their licenses.

A federal judge and in 2004 the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the federal government's position. To do so, the appeals court ruled, "interferes with the democratic debate about physician-assisted suicide" and prevented the government from intervening in medical procedures specifically allowed under Oregon law. The Supreme Court has traditionally deferred to states' rights to set their own course, at the expense of federal power.

After becoming Chief Justice, during presentation of arguments by lawyers for Oregon Roberts asked an Oregon lawyer "Doesn't (the Oregon Law) undermine the uniformity of federal law?", a question which seemed to many observers to foreshadow his willingness to use his authority to assert the principle of Federalism, challenging and overturning any State laws which legalize medical procedures of which the Bush administration does not approve.

John Roberts - Judicial activism and deference to legislatures

[T]he Supreme Court has, throughout its history, on many occasions described the deference that is due to legislative judgments. Justice Holmes described assessing the constitutionality of an act of Congress as the gravest duty that the Supreme Court is called upon to perform …[I]t’s a principle that is easily stated and needs to be observed in practice, as well as in theory. Now, the Court, of course, has the obligation, and has been recognized since Marbury v. Madison, to assess the constitutionality of acts of Congress, and when those acts are challenged, it is the obligation of the Court to say what the law is. The determination of when deference to legislative policy judgments goes too far and becomes abdication of the judicial responsibility, and when scrutiny of those judgments goes too far on the part of the judges and becomes what I think is properly called judicial activism, that is certainly the central dilemma of having an unelected, as you describe it correctly, undemocratic judiciary in a democratic republic.[21]

In referring to Brown v. Board that overturned school segregation: "The Court in that case, of course, overruled a prior decision. I don't think that constitutes judicial activism because obviously if the decision is wrong, it should be overruled. That's not activism. That's applying the law correctly."

John Roberts - Roe v. Wade

In his Senate testimony, Roberts acknowledged that, on the Circuit Court, he would have an obligation to follow precedents established by the Supreme Court, including the controversial decision invalidating many restrictions on the right to an abortion. He stated: "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land… There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent, as well as Casey." [22] (See John Roberts Supreme Court nomination and hearings for speculation about Roberts's current views, concerns about these views raised in the hearings, and the potential impact they might have on his actions in the Supreme Court.)

Adapted from the Wikipedia article "Jurisprudence", under the G.N U Free Docmentation License. Please also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki