Tweet
Roberts: Congress Can Trump Court Decision
WASHINGTON - Chief Justice nominee John Roberts said Wednesday that Congress has the right to counter a divisive Supreme Court ruling and decide whether cities have the broad power to seize and raze people's homes for private development.
"This body and legislative bodies in the states are protectors of the people's rights," Roberts said on the third day of his confirmation hearings to be the nation's 17th chief justice.
Republicans and many Democrats reacted angrily earlier this year when a sharply divided Supreme Court said cities can take and bulldoze people's homes in favor of shopping malls or other private development to generate tax revenue. The decision drew a scathing dissent from Justice Sandra Day O'Connor as favoring rich corporations, and Republican lawmakers have criticized it as infringing on states' rights.
Congress has been working on legislation that would ban the use of federal funds for any project getting the go-ahead using the Kelo v. City of New London, Conn., decision.
"That's a very appropriate approach to consider. What the court is saying is there is this power," Roberts told the Senate Judiciary Committee. "That leaves the ball in the court of the legislature."
Sen. Sam Brownback (news, bio, voting record), R-Kan., had noted a concern of many Americans after the controversial court ruling: that it had become "much easier for one man's home to become another man's castle."
Separately, Roberts declined to answer a question on the legal status of the unborn, using the oft-repeated answer he had given the committee on Tuesday — it could be a case that he would have to vote on.
If confirmed, Roberts, 50, would be the youngest chief justice in 200 years. He would succeed William H. Rehnquist, who died Sept. 3 of cancer at the age of 80.
President Bush had originally nominated Roberts, a federal appeals court judge and conservative lawyer in the Reagan and first Bush administrations, to succeed O'Connor, who announced in July that she would retire. Upon Rehnquist's death, Bush chose Roberts for chief justice.
The second day of committee hearings on Roberts' nomination had shed less light on controversial issues than many Democrats had wanted.
"Some answers have raised other questions," Sen. Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record) of Vermont, the committee's senior Democrat, wrote in his weblog. "In some ways, it seems the more he's asked and the more he answers, the less clearly the real John Roberts is in focus."
Despite the Democratic frustration, it appeared Roberts had done nothing to diminish his strong chances for confirmation to replace Rehnquist before the high court convenes Oct. 3.
Democrats — who argued with Roberts several times Tuesday but mostly moved on after he refused to answer their questions — are just wasting their time trying to make Roberts commit himself to positions on divisive court cases, said Sen. Orrin Hatch (news, bio, voting record), R-Utah.
"I think they're coming to the realization that there's no way they're going to make any headway," Hatch said.
Roberts sparred briefly with two Democrats, Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts and Joseph Biden of Delaware, when they tried to pin him down.
Roberts struck sparks with Biden when he indicated his refusal to answer certain questions was based in part on a precedent of "no hints, no forecasts, no previews" that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg set at her confirmation hearing a dozen years ago.
"That is not true, judge," interrupted Biden, who later accused Roberts of filibustering.
Roberts also rebuffed Kennedy's attempts to draw him into a discussion of his views on lawsuits under the Voting Rights Act — whether a showing of discrimination should be sufficient to prevail, as opposed to a more difficult-to-establish intent to discriminate.
Specter had to jump in both times to stop the senators from interrupting Roberts' statements, urging Kennedy twice, "Let him finish his answer."
Roberts flashed his wit occasionally, announcing with a smile that he had reconsidered his long-ago support for term limits for judges. If confirmed, his appointment would be for life.
Roberts refused to let Republicans label him as another Rehnquist, or as an originalist, a constructionist, a perfectionist or any of the oft-repeated legal definitions that analysts and activists apply to Supreme Court justices.
"I will be my own man," he said.
But supporters and critics agreed that he is a young conservative with the potential to move the court to the right.
Roberts' answers on abortion, however, could worry both sides in the debate.
He called Roe v. Wade "settled law" and said the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey ruling that reaffirmed the right to abortion was "precedent of the court entitled to respect." He declared there is an unwritten right to privacy in the Constitution and said he supported the 1965 Supreme Court ruling in Griswold v. Connecticut establishing the right of privacy on the sale and use of contraceptives.
"We're concerned about those statements," said Troy Newman, head of the anti-abortion Operation Rescue.
But abortion rights groups noted that Roberts never said he would uphold Roe if it comes before the court, or that privacy rights were linked to abortion rights. And while Roberts said previous court decisions should be respected, none of them are immune to being overturned.
___
WASHINGTON - Chief Justice nominee John Roberts said Wednesday that Congress has the right to counter a divisive Supreme Court ruling and decide whether cities have the broad power to seize and raze people's homes for private development.
"This body and legislative bodies in the states are protectors of the people's rights," Roberts said on the third day of his confirmation hearings to be the nation's 17th chief justice.
Republicans and many Democrats reacted angrily earlier this year when a sharply divided Supreme Court said cities can take and bulldoze people's homes in favor of shopping malls or other private development to generate tax revenue. The decision drew a scathing dissent from Justice Sandra Day O'Connor as favoring rich corporations, and Republican lawmakers have criticized it as infringing on states' rights.
Congress has been working on legislation that would ban the use of federal funds for any project getting the go-ahead using the Kelo v. City of New London, Conn., decision.
"That's a very appropriate approach to consider. What the court is saying is there is this power," Roberts told the Senate Judiciary Committee. "That leaves the ball in the court of the legislature."
Sen. Sam Brownback (news, bio, voting record), R-Kan., had noted a concern of many Americans after the controversial court ruling: that it had become "much easier for one man's home to become another man's castle."
Separately, Roberts declined to answer a question on the legal status of the unborn, using the oft-repeated answer he had given the committee on Tuesday — it could be a case that he would have to vote on.
If confirmed, Roberts, 50, would be the youngest chief justice in 200 years. He would succeed William H. Rehnquist, who died Sept. 3 of cancer at the age of 80.
President Bush had originally nominated Roberts, a federal appeals court judge and conservative lawyer in the Reagan and first Bush administrations, to succeed O'Connor, who announced in July that she would retire. Upon Rehnquist's death, Bush chose Roberts for chief justice.
The second day of committee hearings on Roberts' nomination had shed less light on controversial issues than many Democrats had wanted.
"Some answers have raised other questions," Sen. Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record) of Vermont, the committee's senior Democrat, wrote in his weblog. "In some ways, it seems the more he's asked and the more he answers, the less clearly the real John Roberts is in focus."
Despite the Democratic frustration, it appeared Roberts had done nothing to diminish his strong chances for confirmation to replace Rehnquist before the high court convenes Oct. 3.
Democrats — who argued with Roberts several times Tuesday but mostly moved on after he refused to answer their questions — are just wasting their time trying to make Roberts commit himself to positions on divisive court cases, said Sen. Orrin Hatch (news, bio, voting record), R-Utah.
"I think they're coming to the realization that there's no way they're going to make any headway," Hatch said.
Roberts sparred briefly with two Democrats, Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts and Joseph Biden of Delaware, when they tried to pin him down.
Roberts struck sparks with Biden when he indicated his refusal to answer certain questions was based in part on a precedent of "no hints, no forecasts, no previews" that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg set at her confirmation hearing a dozen years ago.
"That is not true, judge," interrupted Biden, who later accused Roberts of filibustering.
Roberts also rebuffed Kennedy's attempts to draw him into a discussion of his views on lawsuits under the Voting Rights Act — whether a showing of discrimination should be sufficient to prevail, as opposed to a more difficult-to-establish intent to discriminate.
Specter had to jump in both times to stop the senators from interrupting Roberts' statements, urging Kennedy twice, "Let him finish his answer."
Roberts flashed his wit occasionally, announcing with a smile that he had reconsidered his long-ago support for term limits for judges. If confirmed, his appointment would be for life.
Roberts refused to let Republicans label him as another Rehnquist, or as an originalist, a constructionist, a perfectionist or any of the oft-repeated legal definitions that analysts and activists apply to Supreme Court justices.
"I will be my own man," he said.
But supporters and critics agreed that he is a young conservative with the potential to move the court to the right.
Roberts' answers on abortion, however, could worry both sides in the debate.
He called Roe v. Wade "settled law" and said the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey ruling that reaffirmed the right to abortion was "precedent of the court entitled to respect." He declared there is an unwritten right to privacy in the Constitution and said he supported the 1965 Supreme Court ruling in Griswold v. Connecticut establishing the right of privacy on the sale and use of contraceptives.
"We're concerned about those statements," said Troy Newman, head of the anti-abortion Operation Rescue.
But abortion rights groups noted that Roberts never said he would uphold Roe if it comes before the court, or that privacy rights were linked to abortion rights. And while Roberts said previous court decisions should be respected, none of them are immune to being overturned.
___