John Roberts Supreme Court nominations: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 01:04, 11 October 2005

Latest revision as of 01:49, 18 July 2025

(249 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Short description|United States Supreme Court nomination}}

{{current}}

{{Use American English|date=April 2020}}

[[Image:John G. roberts.jpg|right|thumb|150px|John Roberts, 17th Chief Justice of the United States]]

{{Use mdy dates|date=April 2020}}

The '''Senate hearings on the nomination of [[John Roberts]] to the Supreme Court''', began on [[September 12]], [[2005]], with [[United States Senate|U.S. Senators]] posing questions to Roberts, who was [[Bush Supreme Court candidates|nominated]] by [[President of the United States|President]] [[George W. Bush]] to fill the vacancy of [[Chief Justice of the United States]].

{{George W. Bush series}}

In July 2005, [[President of the United States|President]] [[George W. Bush]] nominated [[John Roberts]] to succeed retiring [[Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States|Associate Justice]] [[Sandra Day O'Connor]]. However, following the death of [[Chief Justice of the United States]] [[William Rehnquist]], that [[Nomination and confirmation to the Supreme Court of the United States|still-pending nomination]] was withdrawn. On September 5, 2005, President Bush announced that he would nominate Roberts to succeed Rehnquist as Chief Justice instead.

The [[United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary|Senate Judiciary Committee]] commenced hearings on Roberts's nomination to serve as Chief Justice on September 12, 2005. Later that month, on September 29, Roberts was confirmed by the [[United States Senate|Senate]] as the [[List of Chief Justices of the United States|17th]] Chief Justice by a 78–22 vote. He took the Constitutional [[oath of office#United States|oath of office]], administered by Associate Justice [[John Paul Stevens]] at the [[White House]], that same day. On October 3, he took the judicial oath provided for by the [[Judiciary Act of 1789]] at the [[United States Supreme Court building]], prior to the first oral arguments of the 2005 term.

Roberts had been nominated on [[July 19]], [[2005]] to replace [[Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States|Associate Justice]] [[Sandra Day O'Connor]] who announced her pending retirement on [[July 1]].

At the time of his nominations, Roberts was serving as a judge of the [[United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit]]. He was appointed to that position in 2003 by President George W. Bush.

On [[September 3]], three days before Roberts's confirmation hearings were scheduled to begin, [[Chief Justice of the United States|Chief Justice]] [[William Rehnquist]] died. On [[September 5]], President Bush announced the nomination of Roberts for the position of Chief Justice. On [[September 6]], President Bush formally sent notice to the [[United States Senate]] of the new nomination and the withdrawal of Roberts' prior nomination.

==Associate Justice nomination==

On [[September 29]], Roberts was confirmed as Chief Justice by a full Senate vote of 78-22. The 50-year old Roberts became the youngest Chief Justice since [[John Marshall]], who was 45 when he joined the court in [[1801]].

{{Infobox SCOTUS nomination

| nomination = John Roberts nomination to be an Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court

| image = Roberts, Bush SCOTUS announcement.jpg

| image_alt =

| caption = Roberts, accompanied by President Bush, at the announcement of the nomination

| nominee = [[John Roberts]]

| nominated_by = [[George W. Bush]] ([[President of the United States]])

| status =

| outcome = Nomination withdrawn; Roberts instead nominated for Chief Justice

| date_nominated = July 19, 2005 {{small|(announced)}}<br>July 29, 2005 {{small|(formally nominated)}}

| date_withdrawn = September 6, 2005

| start =

| end =

| succeeding = [[Sandra Day O'Connor]] ([[Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States|Associate Justice]])

}}

On July 19, 2005, it was announced by President [[George W. Bush]] that he intended to [[Nomination and confirmation to the Supreme Court of the United States|nominate]] [[John Roberts]] to be an [[Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States|Associate Justice]] on the [[Supreme Court of the United States]] to succeed Associate Justice [[Sandra Day O'Connor]].<ref>{{cite web |title=President Announces Judge John Roberts as Supreme Court Nominee |url=https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2005/07/20050719-7.html |website=georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov |publisher=White House |access-date=3 November 2022 |date=July 19, 2005}}</ref> Roberts was formally nominated on July 29, and the nomination was referred to the [[Senate Judiciary Committee]] the same day.<ref name="CRS2018BJMDSR"/>

Former senator [[Fred Thompson]] and former [[Republican National Committee]] chairman [[Ed Gillespie]] were tasked to serve as Roberts's confirmation "sherpas", advisors tasked with guiding him through the rigors of his confirmation.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Lee |first1=Christopher |title=Hill Veterans Light the Way for Nominee |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2005/09/09/hill-veterans-light-the-way-for-nominee/6eca6015-8e37-4330-acd8-17cbaabef0e3/?next_url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2005/09/09/hill-veterans-light-the-way-for-nominee/6eca6015-8e37-4330-acd8-17cbaabef0e3 |newspaper=The Washington Post |access-date=8 July 2025 |date=9 September 2005}}</ref>

Justice O'Connor has not rescinded her decision to retire, but has agreed to remain on the Supreme Court until her replacement is nominated and confirmed. On [[October 3]], President Bush nominated [[White House Counsel]] [[Harriet Miers]] to replace Justice O'Connor. Barring a [[filibuster]], Miers will likely take office by the end of 2005.

===Assessment by the American Bar Association===

==Confirmation process==

The professional qualifications (integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament) of nominees to the Supreme Court are evaluated by the [[American Bar Association]]'s 15-member Standing Committee on Federal Judiciary, which offers a rating of "well qualified," "qualified," or "not qualified." The opinions of the committee bind neither the president nor the Senate; however, they are generally taken into account.<ref>{{cite journal| title=Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary| last=McMillion| first=Rhonda| date=May 1, 2016| url=http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/scotus_nominees_get_thorough_review_by_aba_standing_committee_on_the_federa| journal=ABA Journal| publisher=American Bar Association| ___location=Chicago, Illinois| accessdate=June 10, 2019}}</ref> On August 17, the ABA committee unanimously gave Roberts a "well qualified" rating. The positive review of Roberts's qualifications for the Court came amid an ongoing dispute between the [[White House Office|White House]] and the ABA over the association's role in vetting judicial candidates.<ref>{{cite news| last=Goldstein| first=Amy| date=August 18, 2005| title=American Bar Association Gives Roberts Top Ranking| newspaper=Washington Post| url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/17/AR2005081701939.html| accessdate=June 10, 2019}}</ref>

[[Image:20050719-7 d-841-515h.jpg|300px|right|thumb|President [[George W. Bush]] shakes hands with his Supreme Court Justice Nominee John Roberts after his remarks on the State Floor of the [[White House]], Tuesday evening, [[July 19]], [[2005]].]]

===Controversies===

Prior to naming Roberts, Bush reportedly considered a wide range of [[Bush Supreme Court candidates|candidates]].

While Roberts was under consideration for the associate judgeship, a number of controversies related to the nomination arose.

====Adoption records====

With the death of Chief Justice Rehnquist, Bush withdrew Roberts' nomination for associate justice and renominated him for chief justice, with only a slight delay in his confirmation hearings to allow for Rehnquist's funeral services.

While investigating Roberts' life, the ''[[New York Times]]'' was accused of attempting to unseal records detailing the 2000 adoption by Roberts and his wife of two infants born in Ireland<ref>{{cite magazine| url=http://www.time.com/time/press_releases/article/0,8599,1086120,00.html | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051226030450/http://www.time.com/time/press_releases/article/0,8599,1086120,00.html | url-status=dead | archive-date=December 26, 2005 | magazine=Time | title=John Roberts | date=July 24, 2005}}</ref> via a Latin American country. The ''Times'' denied any attempts to unseal legal records and stated that "[o]ur reporters made initial inquiries about the adoptions" and "[t]hey did so with great care, understanding the sensitivity of the issue."

The ''Times'' was condemned by the National Council for Adoption, "NCFA denounces, in the strongest possible terms, the shocking decision of the ''New York Times'' to investigate the adoption records of Justice John Roberts' two young children. The adoption community is outraged that, for obviously political reasons, the ''Times'' has targeted the very private circumstances, motivations, and processes by which the Roberts became parents."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/special_packages/election2004/12316546.htm|title=Columbia, SC Breaking News, Sports, Weather & More - TheState.com & The State|work=thestate.com|url-status=dead|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20050808233911/http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/special_packages/election2004/12316546.htm|archivedate=August 8, 2005}}</ref>

Former Senator [[Fred Dalton Thompson]] helped to promote Roberts' nomination. The nomination was first considered by the 18-member [[Senate Judiciary Committee]]. The committee was allowed to send the nomination to the Senate with their approval, send it to the Senate with no opinion, or decline to forward the nomination. On [[September 22]], the committee voted 13-5 to send Roberts' confirmation to the full Senate.

The reasons for the adoption happening in the unnamed Latin American country remain unclear, though it was noted that the Irish 1991 Adoption Act only allows adoption of children born in Ireland by people resident in Ireland.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1991/en/act/pub/0014/sec0010.html#zza14y1991s10|title=Adoption Act, 1991|work=irishstatutebook.ie}}</ref>

On [[September 29]], Roberts was confirmed by the full Senate by a vote of [http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00245 78-22]. Hours after confirmation, he was sworn in by Associate Justice [[John Paul Stevens]] at the [[White House]].

====Federalist Society involvement====

The chief justice needs a majority vote of the senate.

Judge Roberts has stated that he cannot recall ever having been a member of the [[Federalist Society]]. He sought and received published corrections from several major news organizations retracting earlier reports that he had been a member.<ref>{{cite news |last=Lane |first=Charles. |title=Federalist affiliation misstated: Roberts does not belong to group |newspaper=Washington Post |date=July 21, 2005 |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/20/AR2005072002431.html?nav=hcmodule}}</ref> On July 25, 2005, however, ''[[The Washington Post]]'' reported that John Roberts is listed in the Society's 1997–1998 leadership directory as serving on the Steering Committee of the Federalist Society. The same source also indicates the possibility that the individuals listed in the "leadership directory" are, in a technical sense, not necessarily "members" of the society, and no confirmable membership information is officially disclosed by the Society itself.

====2000 presidential election activities====

=== Role of the ABA ===

While an attorney at [[Hogan & Hartson]], Roberts met with [[List of governors of Florida|Florida Governor]] [[Jeb Bush]] and gave advice on the legal aspects of election disputes during the [[2000 United States presidential election#Florida election results|Florida recount]] of 2000.<ref>[https://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/21/politics/21florida.html ''Nominee Gave Quiet Advice on Recount''], New York Times, July 21, 2005</ref> According to [[Ted Cruz]], an advisor on Bush's 2000 campaign, Roberts helped polish some legal briefs and held a "moot court" session to prepare Bush's lawyers for arguments in ''[[Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board]]'' and ''[[Bush v. Gore]]''.<ref>[https://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/28/politics/28confirm.html ''Panel Sends Judge 10-Page Questionnaire''], New York Times, July 25, 2005</ref>

Nominees to the Supreme Court are evaluated by the [[American Bar Association]]'s Standing Committee on Federal Judiciary. The opinions of the committee bind neither the President nor the Senate; however, they are generally taken into account.

The panel is composed of fifteen federal judges (but not Supreme Court Justices), including at least one from each federal judicial circuit. The body assesses the nominee "solely to professional qualifications: integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament," and offers a rating of "well qualified," "qualified," or "not qualified."

On [[August 17]], the ABA committee unanimously gave Roberts a "well qualified" rating.

====Advertisement by NARAL====

==Investigation==

On August 10, 2005, [[NARAL Pro-Choice America]], an advocate for legal [[abortion]], aired controversial [[advertisement]]s featuring [[Emily Lyons]],<ref>{{cite web|url=http://download.ifilm.com/qt/portal/2677570_300.mov |title=Archived copy |accessdate=September 13, 2005 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20050929004531/http://download.ifilm.com/qt/portal/2677570_300.mov |archivedate=September 29, 2005 }}</ref> an abortion clinic director who was injured in the [[Eric Rudolph]] clinic bombing in 1998. The ad alleged that

:Supreme Court nominee John Roberts filed court briefs supporting violent fringe groups and a convicted clinic bomber... America can't afford a justice whose ideology leads him to excuse violence against other Americans.

=== Judiciary Committee questionnaire ===

Roberts' total assets were stated as being approximately [[United States dollar|US $]]6 million, with sizable investments in [[XM Satellite Radio]], [[Dell, Inc.]], and [[Texas Instruments]]. His home in [[Bethesda, Maryland]] was valued at $1.3 million. hes also a fucking moron

The ads ran only in [[Maine]] and [[Rhode Island]], the home states of moderate Republican Senators [[Olympia Snowe]], [[Susan Collins (politician)|Susan Collins]] and [[Lincoln Chafee]].

==Hearings==

The brief, which was filed almost seven years before the bombing of Lyons' clinic and which dealt with obstructing access to clinics, not bombings,<ref>[http://www.factcheck.org/article340.html FactCheck.org: NARAL Falsely Accuses Supreme Court Nominee Roberts<!-- Bot generated title -->] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050811234100/http://factcheck.org/article340.html |date=August 11, 2005 }}</ref> argued that while abortion protesters from [[Operation Save America|Operation Rescue]] could not be prosecuted under the 1871 Federal [[Ku Klux Klan#End of the first Klan|Ku Klux Klan Act]] for discrimination, they had violated state law by trespassing. Ultimately, the [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] agreed, ruling 6 to 3 in ''[[Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic]]'' that opposition to abortion did not constitute discrimination against women "as is evident from the fact that men and women are on both sides of the issue, just as men and women are on both sides of petitioners' unlawful demonstrations."

=== How the hearings progressed ===

[[Senate Judiciary Committee]] Chairman [[Arlen Specter]] had called for a final vote by the committee on or before [[September 15]], but Rehnquist's death and the renomination of Roberts for Chief Justice caused a delay. The confirmation hearings before the Committee began at Noon, [[September 12]], [[2005]]. On the first day of the hearings, the eighteen members of the committee gave their opening statements, followed by the introduction of the nominee by Senators [[Richard Lugar]], [[Evan Bayh]] and [[John Warner]] (who are not members of the committee). Roberts was then sworn in and gave his opening statement.

Even before the ad was shown on [[television]], [[White House]] spokesman [[Steve Schmidt]] responded to them, describing the claims as "outrageously false, bordering on the slanderous." While Roberts in his ''amicus'' brief for the Government, argued that abortion protestors could not be prosecuted federally for discrimination, he pointed out that the defendants obstruction was illegal under Virginia law. Further, Roberts has argued in a Reagan administration memo that violence such as bombings had no protection under the law: "No matter how lofty or sincerely held the goal, those who resort to violence to achieve it are criminals," he wrote.<ref>{{cite news| url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/08/AR2005080801460.html | newspaper=The Washington Post | title=Ad Campaign Says Roberts Backed Violent Protesters | first=Dan | last=Balz | date=August 9, 2005}}</ref> NARAL was unimpressed with this memo, arguing that it was not an official action like his ''amicus'' brief.{{citation needed|date=July 2013}}

On [[September 13]], the hearing resumed at 9:30am, with the first round of questioning, each Senator having 30 minutes to query the nominee. During the course of the day, Roberts answered questions from 16 of the 18 committee members, on a variety of topics. He affirmed his commitment to a constitutional right to privacy, clarified his position on civil rights during wartime, and took a conservative position on the use of international law in interpreting the U.S. Constitution.[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4845368]

NARAL argued that "This wasn't an arcane legal dispute, but a fight over whether or not law enforcement could use their most effective weapon [the Klan Act] against extremists who use violence."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/Issues/supremecourt/roberts_spin.cfm |title=Roberts Spin|accessdate=August 10, 2005 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20050903004320/http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/Issues/supremecourt/roberts_spin.cfm |archivedate=September 3, 2005 }}</ref> After the ''Bray'' decision, Congress passed the [[Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act]], which criminalized obstructing access to abortion clinics at the Federal level, effectively replacing the Klan Act with an even more effective legal weapon against those that obstructed access to clinics. ''[[National Review Online]]'' argued that "The fact that this law failed to deter the 1998 bombing that injured the clinic worker featured in NARAL's ad makes it all the more ludicrous to suggest that Roberts's proper reading of the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 in 1991 is somehow responsible."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://bench.nationalreview.com/archives/072303.asp |title=NARAL's Lies |accessdate=August 10, 2005 |work=Bench Memos |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20050904001055/http://bench.nationalreview.com/archives/072303.asp |archivedate=September 4, 2005 }}</ref> In the face of intense criticism even among supporters of legal abortion, NARAL eventually withdrew the ads.{{citation needed|date=July 2013}}

On [[September 14]], the hearing resumed at 9:00am, with the completion of the first round of questioning, followed by the start of the second round of questioning. Questioning did not finish this day, and was scheduled to be continued the next day.

==White House announcement of intention to instead nominate Roberts as Chief Justice==

On [[September 15]], the hearing again resumed at 9:00am, with the completion of the final round of questioning of Roberts. Later, the committee went into private session to discuss FBI reports on the nominee, a standard procedure followed for all nominees to federal courts. Following this, the committee heard testimony from the American Bar Association and six panels of various witnesses for the remainder of the afternoon and into early evening. The hearings were adjourned with 24 hours to remain for committee members to submit written questions to Roberts, which were to be answered by him as thoroughly as practicable.

President [[George W. Bush]] announced that he would nominate Judge [[John Roberts]] as the [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court's]] 17th [[Chief Justice of the United States|chief justice]] on September 5, 2005, two days after the death of Chief Justice [[William Rehnquist]], and five weeks after selecting him for appointment to succeed O'Connor as associate justice.<ref name=BakerWaPo>{{cite news| last=Baker| first=Peter| date=September 6, 2005| title=Bush Nominates Roberts as Chief Justice| url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/05/AR2005090500173.html| newspaper=Washington Post| accessdate=June 10, 2019}}</ref> The following day, Bush officially nominated Roberts to be the next Chief Justice, and simultaneously withdrew Roberts's still-pending Associate Justice nomination.<ref>{{cite web| title=Supreme Court Nomination and Withdrawal Sent to the Senate| url=https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2005/09/20050906-2.html| date=September 6, 2005| publisher=Office of the Press Secretary, The White House| ___location=Washington, D.C.| accessdate=June 10, 2019| via=georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov}}</ref> [[Nomination and confirmation to the Supreme Court of the United States|Confirmation hearings]] on the Roberts Associate Justice nomination, set to begin on September 6, were canceled, and rescheduled hearings, for his Chief Justice nomination, began on September 12.<ref name=CRS2018BJMDSR>{{cite web| last1=McMillion| first1=Barry J.| last2=Rutkus| first2=Denis Steven| date=July 6, 2018| title=Supreme Court Nominations, 1789 to 2017: Actions by the Senate, the Judiciary Committee, and the President| url=https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33225.pdf| publisher=Congressional Research Service| ___location=Washington, D.C.| accessdate=June 10, 2019}}</ref>

When announcing Roberts's nomination, Bush noted that the Court's next term began in but a few weeks (October 3), stating, "It is in the interest of the court and the country to have a Chief Justice on the bench on the first full day of the fall term." He went on to say, "The Senate is well along in the process of considering Judge Roberts's qualifications. They know his record and his fidelity to the law. I'm confident that the Senate can complete hearings and confirm him as chief justice within a month."<ref name=BakerWaPo/> Senate [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democrats]] vowed to put Roberts under greater scrutiny now that he was being nominated for chief justice, but gave no indication that his nomination faced any significant difficulties. The [[Party leaders of the United States Senate|Senate Majority Leader]], [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican]] [[Bill Frist]], anticipated no problems, saying, "I still expect Judge Roberts to be confirmed before the Supreme Court starts its new term on October 3."<ref name=BakerWaPo/>

On [[September 22]], the committee voted 13-5 to send Roberts' confirmation to the full Senate. Senators Biden, Durbin, Feinstein, Kennedy, and Schumer were the five "no" voters. The full 100-member Senate subsequently debated Roberts' nomination, beginning on [[September 26]].

No hearings nor votes had yet been held by the Judiciary Committee on Roberts' nomination before this announcement was made.<ref name="CRS2018BJMDSR"/>

The Senate voted on the nomination beginning at 11:30 a.m. EDT on [[September 29]], with Roberts winning confirmation by a 78-22 vote. All 55 [[Republican Party (United States)|Republicans]] voted to confirm Roberts; 22 [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democrats]], including [[Senate Judiciary Committee]] ranking member [[Patrick Leahy]] of [[Vermont]], also voted to confirm Roberts, as did the one independent ([[Jim Jeffords]]). 22 Democrats, including [[Senate Minority Leader]] [[Harry Reid]] of [[Nevada]], voted in opposition.

==Chief Justice nomination==

=== Questions and answers ===

{{Infobox SCOTUS nomination

''Section detailing the debate over what type of questions are appropriate and what sorts of answers the nominee should be expected to provide.''

| nomination = John Roberts nomination as Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court

| image = Robertsoath6.jpg

| image_alt =

| caption = President Bush, accompanied by Roberts, announces his intention to nominate Roberts as Chief Justice on September 5, 2005 in the [[Oval Office]] of the [[White House]]

| nominee = [[John Roberts]]

| nominated_by = [[George W. Bush]] ([[president of the United States]])

| status =

| outcome = Approved by the [[United States Senate|U.S. Senate]]

| date_nominated = September 5, 2005 {{Small|(announced)}}<br>September 6, 2005 {{Small|(formally nominated)}}

| date_confirmed = September 29, 2005

| start =

| end =

| succeeding = [[William H. Rehnquist]] ([[Chief Justice of the United States|Chief Justice]])

| header_votes =

| vote1 = Vote of the [[Senate Judiciary Committee]]

| votes_favor1 = 13

| votes_against1 = 5

| present1 =

| not_voting1 =

| result1 = Reported favorably

| vote2 = Senate confirmation vote

| votes_favor2 = 78

| votes_against2 = 22

| present2 =

| not_voting2 =

| result2 = Confirmed

}}

Roberts' nomination for Associate Justice was withdrawn on September 6, 2005, and he was formally nominated to serve as Chief Justice.<ref name="CRS2018BJMDSR"/>

On [[August 8]], in a letter to the nominee, Senator [[Arlen Specter]] stated that he would expect Roberts to provide his views on specific cases involving the authority of Congress to pass broad social legislation.

===Confirmation Witnesses hearings===

{{see also|Senate Judiciary Committee reviews of nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States}}

Roberts gave an opening statement on the first day of the hearings, after the 18 senators each gave 10-minute opening statements.

[[File:John Roberts Confirmation Hearings.jpg|thumb|Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings of John Roberts to be Chief Justice of the United States in September 2005]]

During the questioning, each senator on the committee will get at least 50 minutes to question Roberts: 30 minutes in a first round and 20 minutes in a second round. Additional rounds may be scheduled.

[[Senate Judiciary Committee]] Chairman [[Arlen Specter]] had called for a final vote by the committee on or before September 15, but Rehnquist's death and the renomination of Roberts for Chief Justice caused a delay in the first round of questioning, each Senator having 30 minutes to query the nominee. During the course of the day, Roberts answered questions from 16 of the 18 committee members, on a variety of topics. He affirmed his commitment to a constitutional right to privacy, clarified his position on civil rights during wartime, and took a conservative position on the use of international law in interpreting the U.S. Constitution.<ref name="NPR1">{{cite web|url=https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4845368|title=Privacy, Precedents Dominate Roberts Session|date=September 13, 2005|work=NPR.org}}</ref>

==Confirmation issues==

On September 14, the hearing resumed at 9:00&nbsp;a.m., with the completion of the first round of questioning, followed by the start of the second round of questioning. Questioning did not finish this day, and was scheduled to be continued the next day.

===Roberts' personal religious beliefs===

Some interpret the "no religious Test" clause in Article VI of the [[US Constitution]] as prohibiting Senate inquiry into a federal nominee's religious beliefs, and a reflection of the framers' belief that one's religion is a matter between one's God and one's self and should not play a role in determining suitability for public office. Writing in the [[Wall Street Journal]], attorney Manual Miranda describes the genesis of the clause:

::''The clause was motivated by the experience of Catholics in the Maryland colony and Baptists in Virginia who had been the targets of Great Britain's two Test Acts. These infamous laws of intolerance sought to prevent anyone who did not belong to the Church of England from holding public office. The Test Acts did not say that Catholics could not hold office; the bigotry was more subtle. Officials questioned would-be public servants to determine whether they believed in particular tenets of the Catholic faith.'' [http://www.opinionjournal.com/nextjustice/?id=110007259]

However, some hold that it is legitimate for senators to question Roberts on the relationship between his [[Catholic]] (or [[Christian]]) faith and his position on various constitutional issues, commonly issues that the Catholic church takes a strong stance on such as [[abortion]] and [[euthanasia]]. [http://www.catholicleague.org/research/rippingroberts.htm] Some have also suggested that the religious beliefs or associations of Roberts' wife should also be weighed by the Senate. These areas of inquiry were not pursued by senators when [[Ruth Bader Ginsburg]] and [[Stephen Breyer]], both [[Jewish]], were nominated. Some Catholics consider this a double-standard being advocated for Roberts' Senate hearing as an example of anti-Catholic bigotry and discrimination. But others consider Roberts' religious views as being open for questioning by the Senate.

On September 15, the hearing again resumed at 9:00&nbsp;a.m., with the completion of the final round of questioning of Roberts. Later, the committee went into private session to discuss FBI reports on the nominee, a standard procedure followed for all nominees to federal courts. Following this, the committee heard testimony from the American Bar Association and six panels of various witnesses for the remainder of the afternoon and into early evening. The hearings were adjourned with 24 hours to remain for committee members to submit written questions to Roberts, which were to be answered by him as thoroughly as practicable.

Recent history provides examples of what some consider to be a pattern of applying a religious test to nominees who are thought to strongly oppose abortion due to their religious beliefs. During the confirmation hearings of former Attorney General [[John Ashcroft]], Senate Minority Leader [[Harry Reid]] said "I think we have a right to look into John Ashcroft's religion." During Judge [[William Pryor]]'s confirmation hearings for a federal bench in Atlanta, Senator [[Charles Schumer]] said he was troubled by Pryor's "deeply held personal beliefs." [http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/presser_rice200509130813.asp] There were predictions by some, notably the [[Catholic League for Civil and Religious Rights]] [http://catholicleague.org/research/rippingroberts.htm], [[Notre Dame]] law professor Charles Rice in the [[National Review]] [http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/presser_rice200509130813.asp], and the civil rights groups [[Fidelis]] and the [[Center for Jewish Values]] [http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/presser_rice200509130813.asp], that the pattern would be repreated with Roberts' confirmation hearing. Most Rev. [[Charles Chaput]], Archbishop of Denver, notes that "many people already believe that a new kind of religious discrimination is very welcome at the Capitol, even among elected officials who claim to be Catholic," concluding that "the bias against '[[papism]]' is alive and well in America." However, others do not interpret the clause as prohibiting Senate inquiry into the religious beliefs of a nominee; rather they hold that religious inquiries by the Senate are not the application of a religious Test (or disqualification), but a valid form of inquiry into Roberts' source of values and beliefs, which they consider to be highly relevant to a position such as Supreme Court Justice.

====Questions and answers====

On September 13, during the second day of confirmation hearings Senator [[Arlen Specter]] asked Roberts whether his faith would affect his opinions on the bench. Roberts responded that "there is nothing in my personal view based on faith or other sources that would prevent me from applying the precedents of the court faithfully in accord with the principles of [[stare decisis]]." Later the same day, he also said "my faith and my religious beliefs do not play a role in my judging. ... I look to the law. I do not look to the Bible or other religious books." [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4845368]

During Judge [[William H. Pryor Jr.|William H. Pryor]]'s confirmation hearings for a federal bench in Atlanta, Senator [[Charles Schumer]] said he was troubled by Pryor's "deeply held personal beliefs".<ref name="NRC1">[http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/presser_rice200509130813.asp Stephen Presser & Charles Rice on John Roberts on National Review Online<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> There were predictions by some, notably the [[Catholic League for Civil and Religious Rights]],<ref>{{cite web|title=RIPPING ROBERTS ON RELIGION|url=http://catholicleague.org/research/rippingroberts.htm|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051123111625/http://www.catholicleague.org/research/rippingroberts.htm|archive-date=November 23, 2005|work=catholicleague.org}}</ref> [[University of Notre Dame|Notre Dame]] law professor Charles Rice in the [[National Review]],<ref name="NRC1"/> the Center for Jewish Values, and the Catholic organization [[Fidelis (Catholic organization)|Fidelis]]<ref name="NRC1"/> that the pattern would be repeated with Roberts' confirmation hearing. Most Rev. [[Charles Chaput]], OFM Cap, Archbishop of Denver, noted that "many people already believe that a new kind of religious discrimination is very welcome at the Capitol, even among elected officials who claim to be Catholic," concluding that "the bias against '[[papism]]' is alive and well in America." However, others did not interpret the clause as prohibiting Senate inquiry into the religious beliefs of a nominee; rather they held that religious inquiries by the Senate are not the application of a religious Test (or disqualification), but a valid form of inquiry into Roberts' source of values and beliefs, which they consider to be highly relevant to a position such as Supreme Court Justice.

On September 14, Senator [[Diane Feinstein]] asked Roberts about the "role Catholicism would play" in his tenure as a justice. Roberts declined to endorse President Kennedy's statement that "separation of church and state is absolute," telling Feinstein, "I don't know what you mean by 'absolute.' " Some consider such questioning to be a revival of anti-Catholic bigotry reminiscent of the public concern about Catholic influence that presidential candidate [[John F. Kennedy]] faced in 1960, and exemplified by the controversial [[Blaine Amendments]]. [http://www.opinionjournal.com/nextjustice/?id=110007259]

On September 13, during the second day of confirmation hearings Senator [[Arlen Specter]] asked Roberts whether his faith would affect his opinions on the bench. Roberts responded that "there is nothing in my personal view based on faith or other sources that would prevent me from applying the precedents of the court faithfully in accord with the principles of [[stare decisis]]." Later the same day, he also said "my faith and my religious beliefs do not play a role in my judging. ... I look to the law. I do not look to the Bible or other religious books."<ref name="NPR1"/> On September 14, Senator [[Dianne Feinstein]] asked Roberts about the "role Catholicism would play" in his tenure as a justice. Roberts declined to endorse President Kennedy's statement that "separation of church and state is absolute," telling Feinstein, "I don't know what you mean by 'absolute'." Some consider such questioning to be a revival of anti-Catholic bigotry reminiscent of the public concern about Catholic influence that presidential candidate [[John F. Kennedy]] faced in 1960, and exemplified by the controversial [[Blaine Amendments]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.opinionjournal.com/nextjustice/?id=110007259 | archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20051102143334/http://www.opinionjournal.com/nextjustice/?id=110007259 | author1= Manuel Miranda | date = 15 September 2005 | series = The Next Justices | work = Wall Street Journal | url-status= dead | title= The JFK Question: Sens. Specter and Feinstein impose an unconstitutional religious test | archive-date= 2 November 2005 | type= opinion }}</ref>

===Adoption records===

While investigating Roberts' life, the ''[[New York Times]]'' was accused of attempting to unseal records detailing the 2000 adoption by Roberts and his wife of two Irish infants via a Latin American country. The ''Times'' denied any attempts to unseal legal records and stated that "[o]ur reporters made initial inquiries about the adoptions" and "[t]hey did so with great care, understanding the sensitivity of the issue."

===Judiciary Committee recommendation===

The ''Times'' was condemned by the [http://www.ncfa-usa.org/National National Council for Adoption], "NCFA denounces, in the strongest possible terms, the shocking decision of the ''New York Times'' to investigate the adoption records of Justice John Roberts' two young children. The adoption community is outraged that, for obviously political reasons, the ''Times'' has targeted the very private circumstances, motivations, and processes by which the Roberts became parents."[http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/special_packages/election2004/12316546.htm]

On September 22, 2005, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 13–5 to send the Roberts nomination to the full Senate with a recommendation that it be confirmed. Roberts garnered the votes of all 10 Republicans on the committee and of three Democrats: Patrick Leahy, Herb Kohl and Russ Feingold.<ref>{{cite news| author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.-->| title=Judiciary Panel Approves Roberts| url=https://www.foxnews.com/story/judiciary-panel-approves-roberts| others=Liza Porteus, Brian Wilson, and The Associated Press, contributors| date=January 13, 2015| orig-year=Published September 22, 2005| publisher=FOX News| accessdate=June 10, 2019}}</ref>

===Confirmation vote===

=== Federalist Society ===

John Roberts was confirmed as chief justice on September 29, 2005, by a commanding majority, 78–22, of the Senate. All 55 Republicans voted "yes", as did 22 Democrats, and one independent; voting "no" were 22 Democrats.<ref name=RobertsCBS092905>{{cite news| last=Roberts| first=Joel| title=Roberts Confirmed As Chief Justice| url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/roberts-confirmed-as-chief-justice/| work=CBS News| date=September 29, 2005| accessdate=June 10, 2019}}</ref> Later that same day, the 50-year-old Roberts was given the [[Article Six of the United States Constitution#Oaths|general Constitutional oath]] by the senior Associate Justice, [[John Paul Stevens]], in a ceremony at the [[White House]]. Prior to the ceremony, President Bush said, "The Senate has confirmed a man with an astute mind and a kind heart."<ref>{{cite news| author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.-->| title=Roberts sworn in as chief justice: Bush poised to name O'Connor replacement| date=September 29, 2005| url=http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/29/roberts.nomination/index.html| others=Bill Mears, contributor| publisher=CNN| accessdate=June 10, 2019}}</ref> On October 3, he took the prescribed judicial oath at the [[United States Supreme Court Building]], becoming the first new Supreme Court justice in 11 years, and the youngest to enter the office since [[John Marshall]], who was confirmed in 1801 at age 45. After Roberts was sworn in, the era of the [[Roberts Court]] began, with Chief Justice Roberts, and Associate Justices Stevens, O'Connor, [[Antonin Scalia]], [[Anthony Kennedy]], [[David Souter]], [[Clarence Thomas]], [[Ruth Bader Ginsburg]], and [[Stephen Breyer]].<ref name=RobertsCBS092905/>

Judge Roberts has stated that he cannot recall ever having been a member of the [[Federalist Society]]. He sought and received published corrections from several major news organizations retracting earlier reports that he had been a member. On [[25 July]] 2005, however, the [[Washington Post]] reported that John Roberts is listed in the Society's 1997&ndash;1998 leadership Directory as serving on the Steering Committee of the Federalist Society. The same source also indicates the possibility that the individuals listed in the "leadership directory" are, in a technical sense, not necessarily "members" of the society, and no confirmable membership information is officially disclosed by the Society itself.

{| class="wikitable"

===2000 Presidential Election===

While an attorney at Hogan & Hartson, Roberts met with [[Governor of Florida|Florida Governor]] [[Jeb Bush]] and gave advice on the legal aspects of election disputes during the [[2000 US presidential election#Florida election results|Florida recount]] of 2000. Roberts helped polish some legal briefs and held a "moot court" session to prepare Bush's lawyers for arguments in [[Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board]] and [[Bush v. Gore]].

===NARAL airs, then pulls, controversial advertisement===

On [[10 August]] 2005, [[NARAL Pro-Choice America]], an advocate for legal [[abortion]] group, aired controversial [[advertisement]]s [http://download.ifilm.com/qt/portal/2677570_300.mov] featuring [[Emily Lyons]], an abortion clinic director who was injured in the [[Eric Rudolph]] clinic bombing in 1998. The ad alleged that

:Supreme Court nominee John Roberts filed court briefs supporting violent fringe groups and a convicted clinic bomber… America can't afford a justice whose ideology leads him to excuse violence against other Americans.

The ads ran only in [[Maine]] and [[Rhode Island]], the home states of moderate Republican Senators, [[Olympia Snowe]], [[Susan Collins]], and [[Lincoln Chafee]].

The brief, which was filed almost seven years before the bombing of Lyons' clinic and which dealt with obstructing access to clinics, not bombings [http://www.factcheck.org/article340.html], argued that while abortion protesters from [[Operation Rescue]] could not be prosecuted under the 1871 Federal [[Ku Klux Klan#Decline and suppression|Ku Klux Klan Act]] for discrimination, they had violated state law by trespassing. Ultimately, the [[Supreme Court]] agreed, ruling 6 to 3 in ''[[Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic]]'' that opposition to abortion did not constitute discrimination against women "as is evident from the fact that men and women are on both sides of the issue, just as men and women are on both sides of petitioners' unlawful demonstrations.".

Even before the ad was shown on [[television]], [[White House]] spokesman [[Steve Schmidt]] responded to NARAL's attempt to smear Roberts by linking him to anti-abortion extremists, arguing that the claims were "outrageously false, bordering on the slanderous." While Roberts in his ''amicus'' brief for the Government, argued that abortion protestors could not be prosecuted federally for discrimination, he pointed out that the defendents obstruction was illegal under Virginia law. Further, Roberts has argued in a Reagan administration memo that violence such as bombings had no protection under the law: "No matter how lofty or sincerely held the goal, those who resort to violence to achieve it are criminals," he wrote.[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/08/AR2005080801460.html] NARAL was unimpressed with this memo, arguing that it was not an official action like his ''amicus'' brief.

NARAL argued that "This wasn't an arcane legal dispute, but a fight over whether or not law enforcement could use their most effective weapon [the Klan Act] against extremists who use violence." [http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/Issues/supremecourt/roberts_spin.cfm] After the ''Bray'' decision, Congress passed the [[Freedom of Access to Clinics Entrances Act]], which criminalized obstructing access to abortion clinics at the Federal level, effectively replacing the Klan Act with an even more effective legal weapon against those that obstructed access to clinics. ''[[National Review Online]]'' argued that "The fact that this law failed to deter the 1998 bombing that injured the clinic worker featured in NARAL's ad makes it all the more ludicrous to suggest that Roberts's proper reading of the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 in 1991 is somehow responsible."[http://bench.nationalreview.com/archives/072303.asp]

In the face of intense criticism even among supporters of legal abortion, NARAL eventually withdrew the inflammatory ads.

==Judicial views==

===2003 hearings on appeals court nomination===

During Judiciary Committee hearings on his nomination to the circuit court, Roberts testified on his background and views on jurisprudence.[http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/26jan20041230/www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/pdf/108hrg/92548.pdf] Roberts was subsequently approved by the Senate by [[unanimous consent]]. [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r108:S08MY3-0018:]

====General approach to the Constitution====

Because he has been a judge for only two years, Roberts does not have an extensive case history from which a general approach to the Constitution can be determined, and he appears not to have publicly stated his views on the subject. He has even said that "I do not think beginning with an all-encompassing approach to constitutional interpretation is the best way to faithfully construe the document," which frustrated the Senators during his 2003 nomination.[http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_senate_hearings&docid=f:92548.wais] In law professor [[Randy Barnett]]'s words, "In his distinguished career, he has somehow managed not to give a speech or write an article that reveals the core of his judicial philosophy. As a result, we simply have no idea what to expect from him".[http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_07_17-2005_07_23.shtml#1121879251] [[Cass Sunstein]], a law professor at the [[University of Chicago]] argues that in general, Roberts appears to be a judicial minimalist, emphasizing precedent, as opposed to an [[originalism]]-oriented or rights-focused jurist. "Judge Roberts' opinions thus far are careful, lawyerly, and narrow. They avoid broad pronouncements. They do not try to reorient the law."[http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050801&s=sunstein080105]

====The Commerce Clause====

<blockquote>[S]tarting with ''[[McCulloch v. Maryland]]'', Chief Justice [[John Marshall|Marshall]] gave a very broad and expansive reading to the powers of the Federal Government and explained that&mdash;and I don't remember the exact quote&mdash;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 ''[[United States v. Lopez|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 an important&mdash;and they hadn't gone through the process of establishing a record in that case.[http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/26jan20041230/www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/pdf/108hrg/92548.pdf]</blockquote>

====Federalism====

<blockquote>[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… [T]he 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.[http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/26jan20041230/www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/pdf/108hrg/92548.pdf]</blockquote>

====Judicial activism and deference to legislatures====

<blockquote>[T]he Supreme Court has, throughout its history, on many occasions described the deference that is due to legislative judgments. Justice [[Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.|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.[http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/26jan20041230/www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/pdf/108hrg/92548.pdf]</blockquote>

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."

===Record as an attorney===

<blockquote>[T]here is a longstanding tradition in our country &mdash; dating back to one of the more famous episodes, of course, being [[John Adams]]' representation of the British soldiers involved in the [[Boston Massacre]] &mdash; that the positions a lawyer presents on behalf of a client should not be ascribed to that lawyer as his personal beliefs or his personal positions.[http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_senate_hearings&docid=f:92548.wais]

</blockquote>

====On ''Roe v. Wade''====

When testifying before the Senate in 2003, 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 ''[[Planned Parenthood v. Casey|Casey]]''."[http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_senate_hearings&docid=f:92548.wais] This consideration would not apply if he were a Justice of the Supreme Court, however. In that capacity he would be entitled to vote to limit ''Roe'' and related cases. Due to the current composition of the court, his vote is unlikely to overrule ''Roe'' if Justice Kennedy continues to back it, but Roberts' vote has the potential to overrule ''[[Stenberg v. Carhart]]''.

====Life tenure====

In a [[1983]] memo analyzing a Senate resolution to limit the judges to 10-year terms, Roberts questioned the desirability of lifetime tenure, arguing that when the Constitution was drafted, "people simply did not live as long as they do now" and that contemporary judges risked "los[ing] all touch with reality through decades of ivory tower existence" by becoming "insulated from the normal currents of life for 25 or 30 years." He also saw limiting the terms of judges as a good way to ensure turnover and to prevent judges from becoming too [[judicial activism|activist]]{{ref|Yahoo}}.

====Neutrality====

Judge Roberts has specifically disassociated himself from cases he was involved with during his tenure as Deputy Solicitor General. In a footnote to a [[1994]] [[law review]] article, he wrote:

: In the interest of full disclosure, the author would like to point out that as Deputy Solicitor General for a portion of the [[1992]]&ndash;[[1993|'93]] term, he was involved in many of the cases discussed below. In the interest of even fuller disclosure, he would also like to point out that his views as a commentator on those cases do not necessarily reflect his views as an advocate for his former client, the [[United States]].

===Notable arguments on behalf of clients===

====As Deputy Solicitor General==== (arguing for the results sought by his client, the President of the United States)

=====Abortion=====

Roberts is listed as a coauthor on a [[brief (law)|brief]] before the Supreme Court in ''[[Rust v. Sullivan]]'', [[Court citation|500 U.S. 173]] ([[1991]]), defending the validity of a [[Department of Health and Human Services]] regulation that prohibited recipients of funding under the [[Public Health Service Act]] from not only providing abortions, but also counselling, advising, or promoting the idea that a woman seek an abortion:

<blockquote>We continue to believe that ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' was wrongly decided and should be overruled. As more fully explained in our briefs, filed as [[amicus curiae]], in ''[[Hodgson v. Minnesota]]'', [[Court citation|110 S. Ct. 2926]] (1990); ''[[Webster v. Reproductive Health Services]]'', [[Court citation|109 S. Ct. 3040]] (1989); ''[[Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists]]'', [[Court citation|476 U.S. 747]] (1986); and ''[[City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health]]'', [[Court citation|462 U.S. 416]] (1983), the Court's conclusions in ''Roe'' that there is a fundamental right to an abortion and that government has no compelling interest in protecting prenatal human life throughout pregnancy find no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution. [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/500/173.html]</blockquote>

The brief in question lists the following authors: Michael J. Astrue, [[General Counsel]]; Joel Mangel, Deputy Chief Counsel; Carol C. Conrad, Attorney, Department of Health and Human Services; [[Kenneth W. Starr]], [[Solicitor General]]; Stuart M. Gerson, Assistant Attorney General; [[John G. Roberts, Jr.]], Deputy Solicitor General; Jeffrey P. Minear, Assistant to the Solicitor General; Anthony J. Steinmeyer, Lowell v. Sturgill, Jr., Attorneys.

For further discussion of Roberts's views on ''Roe'', see his comments at the Judiciary Committee hearings under "Views."

=====Environmental regulation=====

Roberts argued against the private citizen's right to sue the federal government for violations of environmental regulations in ''[[Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife]]'', [[Court citation|504 U.S. 555]] (1992).

=====Separation of church and state=====

In a [http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/1990/sg900105.txt brief] in ''[[Lee v. Weisman]]'', [[Court citation|505 U.S. 577]], a [[1992]] case about [[school prayer]], Roberts wrote that "history shows that religious acknowledgments were part of the ceremonies of all three branches of government when the Republic was founded," and that "[n]othing in the text of the Establishment Clause or in the concerns leading to its adoption suggests that a ceremonial acknowledgment of religion is a "law respecting an establishment of religion.'" In the process, he argued that the ''[[Lemon v. Kurtzman]],'' which was used as precedent for ''Lee'', was wrongly decided. He argued that ''[[Marsh v. Chambers]]'', a competing precedent on church-state separation that is less restrictive, is a clearer decision that better interprets the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution]].[http://minipundit.typepad.com/minipundit/2005/07/lee_vs_weisman.html]

====Private law practice====

(arguing for the results sought by his clients)

=====Environmental regulation=====

In the case ''Bragg v. West Virginia Coal Association'', Roberts argued on behalf of the [[National Mining Association]] in support of the legality of [[mountaintop removal]].

=====Business-labor relations=====

In a case before the Supreme Court, Roberts argued on behalf of mining companies who wanted to use criminal contempt fines to force the end of a strike which had been ruled unlawful. The case, ''[[United Mine Workers of America v. Bagwell]]'', [[Court citation|512 U.S. 821]] ([[1994]]), ended in a ruling in favor of the unions, with the majority opinion authored by Justice [[Harry Blackmun]]. [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=512&invol=821]

=====Gay rights=====

The Los Angeles Times reports that Roberts was "instrumental" behind-the-scenes in working to get the Supreme Court to declare a Colorado state constitutional amendment unconstitutional in the case of ''[[Romer v. Evans]]''. The amendment prohibited all legislative, executive and judicial action designed to protect homosexual persons from discrimination.

The Supreme Court, following the lead of Justice Kennedy, held that the amendment violated the equal protection clause of the federal Constitution. Roberts performed his work on the behalf of his law firm's pro bono department at Hogan and Hartson. Hogan and Hartson allow their employees to refuse help on pro bono cases if they find them "morally repugnant". One conservative group, [http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-08-10-voa22.cfm Public Advocate], is planning on opposing Robert's nomination because of this case.

===Judicial opinions===

Roberts has authored 49 opinions in his two years in the D.C. Circuit but has elicited only two dissents on his decisions, and on the many other cases he has heard in that time, he has authored only three dissenting opinions of his own. His past rulings that are most likely to be discussed in his upcoming confirmation hearing dealt with the following issues:

==== Fourth and Fifth Amendments ====

The D.C. Circuit case ''Hedgepeth v. Washington Metro Authority'', [http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200410/03-7149a.pdf 284 F. Supp. 2d 145], involved a twelve-year-old girl who was invited to incriminate herself as an illegal drug user, taken into custody, handcuffed, driven to police headquarters, booked, and fingerprinted because she violated a publicly-advertised [[zero tolerance]] "no eating" policy in a [[Washington D.C.]] metro station by eating a single [[french fry]]. Roberts wrote for a 3-0 panel affirming a district court decision that dismissed the girl's complaint, which was predicated on the [[Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourth]] and [[Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fifth Amendments]], specifically the claim that an adult would have only received a citation for the same offense, while children must be detained until parents can be notified.

Roberts began his opinion by noting, "No one is very happy about the events that led to this litigation," and pointing out that the policies under which the girl was apprehended had since been changed. Because age discrimination is allowed under previous jurisprudence if there is any [[rational basis review|rational basis]] for it, only weak state interests were required to justify the policy. "Because parents and guardians play an essential role in that rehabilitative process, it is reasonable for the District to seek to ensure their participation, and the method chosen &mdash; detention until the parent is notified and retrieves the child &mdash; certainly does that, in a way issuing a citation might not." Roberts concluded that the age discrimination and detention in this case were constitutional, noting that "the question before us… is not whether these policies were a bad idea, but whether they violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution.", language reminiscent of Justice [[Potter Stewart]]'s dissent in ''[[Griswold v. Connecticut]]'', in which Justice Stewart wrote, "''We are not asked in this case to say whether we think this law is unwise, or even asinine. We are asked to hold that it violates the United States Constitution. And that, I cannot do.''"

====Military tribunals====

In ''[[Hamdan v. Rumsfeld]]'', Roberts was part of a unanimous panel overturning the district court ruling and upholding [[military tribunal|military tribunals]] set up by the Bush administration for trying terrorism suspects known as [[enemy combatant|enemy combatants]]. Circuit Judge [[A. Raymond Randolph]], writing for the court, ruled that Hamdan, a driver for [[al-Qaeda]] leader [[Osama bin Laden]] [http://www.yementimes.com/article.shtml?i=712&p=local&a=5], could be tried by a military court because (1) the military commission had the approval of [[Congress]]; (2) the [[Third Geneva Convention]] is a treaty between nations and as such it does not confer individual rights and remedies enforceable in U.S. courts; and (3) even if the Convention could be enforced in U.S. courts, it would not be of assistance to Hamdan at the time because, for a conflict such as the war against al-Qaeda (considered by the court as a separate war from that against [[Afghanistan]] itself) that is not between two countries, it guarantees only a certain standard of judicial procedure without speaking to the jurisdiction in which the prisoner must be tried. The court held open the possibility of judicial review of the results of the military commission after the current proceedings have ended.[http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200507/04-5393a.pdf]

====Environmental regulation====

On the U.S. Court of Appeals, Roberts wrote a dissenting opinion regarding ''Rancho Viejo, LLC v. Norton'', [http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/dc/015373b.html 323 F.3d 1062], a case involving the protection of a rare Californian toad under the [[Endangered Species Act]]. When the court denied a rehearing [[en banc]], [http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/dc/015373b.html 334 F.3d 1158] (D.C. Cir. 2003), Roberts dissented, arguing that the original opinion was wrongly decided because he found it inconsistent with ''[[United States v. Lopez]]'' and ''[[United States v. Morrison]]'' in that it focused on the effects of the regulation, rather than the taking of the toads themselves, on [[interstate commerce]]. In Roberts's view, the [[Commerce Clause]] of the Constitution did not permit the government to regulate activity affecting what he called "a hapless toad" that "for reasons of its own lives its entire life in [[California]]." He said that reviewing the case could allow the court "alternative grounds for sustaining application of the Act that may be more consistent with Supreme Court precedent."

==== Other opinions ====

During his time on the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Judge Roberts wrote opinions for 49 cases (as of 26 July 2005) including the following:

{| {{prettytable}}

! Case

! Argued

! Decided

|-

! colspan=5 style="background:#f5f5f5" | Vote to confirm the Roberts nomination

| ''[[Ramaprakash v. FAA]] [http://laws.findlaw.com/dc/021283a.html]''

|- style="vertical-align:bottom;"

| [[September 18]], [[2003]]

! rowspan=2 style="width: 9em;" | {{nowrap|September 29, 2005}}

| [[October 21]], [[2003]]

! colspan=3 | Party

! rowspan=2 | Total votes

|- style="vertical-align:bottom;"

! style="background-color:#b0ceff;" | [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic]]

! style="background-color:#ffb6b6;" | [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican]]

! style="background-color:#dddddd;" | Independent

|-

| style="background:#F5F5F5" | '''Yea'''

| ''[[United States v. Bolla Steven]] [http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/dc/023085a.html]''

| '''22'''

| [[September 19]], [[2003]]

| '''55'''

| [[October 24]], [[2003]]

| '''{{0|0}}1'''

| style="background:#F5F5F5" | '''78'''

|-

| style="background:#F5F5F5" | Nay

| ''[[Bloch Felix S. v. Powell, Colin L.]] [http://laws.findlaw.com/dc/025311a.html]''

| 22

| [[October 14]], [[2003]]

| {{0|0}}0

| [[November 21]], [[2003]]

| {{0|0}}0

| style="background:#F5F5F5" | 22

|-

| colspan=4 style="text-align:left;" | '''Result: {{green|Confirmed}}'''

| ''[[Hedgepeth v. Washington Metro Transit Authority]] [http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200410/03-7149a.pdf]''

| [[September 17]], [[2004]]

| [[October 26]], [[2004]]

|-

| colspan=5 style="background:#f9f7f0" |

| ''[[Universal City Studios v. Peters]] [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/dc/045138a.pdf]''

{| class="wikitable sortable" style="margin:1em auto;"

| [[February 17]], [[2005]]

| [[April 8]], [[2005]]

|-

! colspan=4 style="background:#f5f5f5" | [[Voting methods in deliberative assemblies#Recorded vote|Roll call vote]] on the nomination

| ''[[United States v. Jackson]] [http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200507/04-3021a.pdf]''

| [[April 4]], [[2005]]

| [[July 22]], [[2005]]

|}

A complete list can be found at the end of this page under 'External links'.

==Trivia concerning Roberts confirmation==

Robert is the second sitting justice to have graduated from Harvard College (along with [[David Souter]]) and the sixth sitting justice to attend Harvard Law School (Souter, [[Stephen Breyer]], [[Antonin Scalia]], and [[Anthony Kennedy]] all graduated from Harvard Law School, while [[Ruth Bader Ginsburg]] attended there for two years and transferred to Columbia Law School). He is the 109th justice to serve on the court, as well as the 17th Chief Justice.

With the addition of Roberts, the Supreme Court's membership has, for the first time, more Roman Catholics with four (Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy are also Catholic) than justices of other denominations. There are now three Protestants (Stevens, Souter, and O'Connor) and two Jewish justices (Ginsburg and Breyer).

==Summary of cases argued as a private attorney==

During his work at Hogan & Hartson, Roberts argued before several appellate courts and several cases before the Supreme Court:

{| {{prettytable}}

! Case

! Argued

! Decided

! Represented

|-

! scope="col" style="width: 170px;"| Senator !! Party !! scope="col" style="width: 115px;"| State !! Vote

| ''[[First Options v. Kaplan]] [http://laws.findlaw.com/us/514/938.html]'', 514 U.S. 938

| [[March 22]], [[1995]]

| [[May 22]], [[1995]]

| Respondent

|-

| {{sortname|Daniel|Akaka}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[Hawaii]] || style="background-color:#ffdd88;" | Nay

| ''[[Adams v. Robertson]]'', 520 U.S. 83

| [[January 14]], [[1997]]

| [[March 3]], [[1997]]

| Respondent

|-

| {{sortname|Lamar|Alexander}} || style="background-color:#ffb6b6; text-align: center;" | R || [[Tennessee]] || style="background-color:#ffffff;" | Yea

| ''[[Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government]] [http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/96-1577.html]'', 522 U.S. 520

| [[December 10]], [[1997]]

| [[February 25]], [[1998]]

| Petitioner

|-

| {{sortname|Wayne|Allard}} || style="background-color:#ffb6b6; text-align: center;" | R || [[Colorado]] || style="background-color:#ffffff;" | Yea

| ''[[Feltner v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc.]] [http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/96-1768.html]'', 534 U.S. 1127

| [[January 21]], [[1998]]

| [[March 31]], [[1998]]

| Petitioner

|-

| {{sortname|George|Allen|George Allen (American politician)}} || style="background-color:#ffb6b6; text-align: center;" | R || [[Virginia]] || style="background-color:#ffffff;" | Yea

| ''[[NCAA v. Smith]] [http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/98-84.html]'', 525 U.S. 459

| [[January 20]], [[1999]]

| [[February 23]], [[1999]]

| Petitioner

|-

| {{sortname|Max|Baucus}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[Montana]] || style="background-color:#ffffff;" | Yea

| ''[[Rice v. Cayetano]] [http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/98-818.html]'', 528 U.S. 495

| [[October 6]], [[1999]]

| [[February 23]], [[2000]]

| Respondent

|-

| {{sortname|Evan|Bayh}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[Indiana]] || style="background-color:#ffdd88;" | Nay

| ''[[Eastern Associated Coal Corp. v. Mine Workers]] [http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/99-1038.html]'', 531 U.S. 57

| [[October 2]], [[2000]]

| [[November 28]], [[2000]]

| Petitioner

|-

| {{sortname|Robert|Bennett|Bob Bennett (politician)}} || style="background-color:#ffb6b6; text-align: center;" | R || [[Utah]] || style="background-color:#ffffff;" | Yea

| ''[[TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc.]] [http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/99-1571.html]'', 532 U.S. 23

| [[November 29]], [[2000]]

| [[March 20]], [[2001]]

| Petitioner

|-

| {{sortname|Joe|Biden}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[Delaware]] || style="background-color:#ffdd88;" | Nay

| ''[[Toyota Motor Mfg v. Williams]] [http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/00-1089.html]'', 534 U.S. 184

| [[November 7]], [[2001]]

| [[January 8]], [[2002]]

| Petitioner

|-

| {{sortname|Jeff|Bingaman}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[New Mexico]] || style="background-color:#ffffff;" | Yea

| ''[[Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency]] [http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/00-1167.html]'', 535 U.S. 302

| [[January 7]], [[2002]]

| [[April 23]], [[2002]]

| Respondent

|-

| {{sortname|Kit|Bond}} || style="background-color:#ffb6b6; text-align: center;" | R || [[Missouri]] || style="background-color:#ffffff;" | Yea

| ''[[Rush Prudential HMO, Inc. v. Moran]] [http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/00-1021.html]'', 536 U.S. 355

| [[January 16]], [[2002]]

| [[June 20]], [[2002]]

| Petitioner

|-

| {{sortname|Barbara|Boxer}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[California]] || style="background-color:#ffdd88;" | Nay

| ''[[Gonzaga University v. Doe]] [http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/01-679.html]'', 536 U.S. 273

| [[April 24]], [[2002]]

| [[June 20]], [[2002]]

| Petitioner

|-

| {{sortname|Sam|Brownback}} || style="background-color:#ffb6b6; text-align: center;" | R || [[Kansas]] || style="background-color:#ffffff;" | Yea

| ''[[Barnhart v. Peabody Coal Co.]] [http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/01-705.html]'', 537 U.S. 149

| [[October 8]], [[2002]]

| [[January 15]], [[2003]]

| Respondent

|-

| {{sortname|Jim|Bunning}} || style="background-color:#ffb6b6; text-align: center;" | R || [[Kentucky]] || style="background-color:#ffffff;" | Yea

| ''[[Smith v. Doe]] [http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/01-729.html]'', 538 U.S. 84

|-

| [[November 13]], [[2002]]

| {{sortname|Conrad|Burns}} || style="background-color:#ffb6b6; text-align: center;" | R || [[Montana]] || style="background-color:#ffffff;" | Yea

| [[March 5]], [[2003]]

|-

| Petitioner

| {{sortname|Richard|Burr}} || style="background-color:#ffb6b6; text-align: center;" | R || [[North Carolina]] || style="background-color:#ffffff;" | Yea

|-

| {{sortname|Robert|Byrd}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[West Virginia]] || style="background-color:#ffffff;" | Yea

|-

| {{sortname|Maria|Cantwell}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[Washington (state)|Washington]] || style="background-color:#ffdd88;" | Nay

|-

| {{sortname|Tom|Carper}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[Delaware]] || style="background-color:#ffffff;" | Yea

|-

| {{sortname|Lincoln|Chafee}} || style="background-color:#ffb6b6; text-align: center;" | R || [[Rhode Island]] || style="background-color:#ffffff;" | Yea

|-

| {{sortname|Saxby|Chambliss}} || style="background-color:#ffb6b6; text-align: center;" | R || [[Georgia (U.S. state)|Georgia]] || style="background-color:#ffffff;" | Yea

|-

| {{sortname|Hillary|Clinton}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[New York (state)|New York]] || style="background-color:#ffdd88;" | Nay

|-

| {{sortname|Tom|Coburn}} || style="background-color:#ffb6b6; text-align: center;" | R || [[Oklahoma]] || style="background-color:#ffffff;" | Yea

|-

| {{sortname|Thad|Cochran}} || style="background-color:#ffb6b6; text-align: center;" | R || [[Mississippi]] || style="background-color:#ffffff;" | Yea

|-

| {{sortname|Norm|Coleman}} || style="background-color:#ffb6b6; text-align: center;" | R || [[Minnesota]] || style="background-color:#ffffff;" | Yea

|-

| {{sortname|Susan|Collins}} || style="background-color:#ffb6b6; text-align: center;" | R || [[Maine]] || style="background-color:#ffffff;" | Yea

|-

| {{sortname|Kent|Conrad}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[North Dakota]] || style="background-color:#ffffff;" | Yea

|-

| {{sortname|John|Cornyn}} || style="background-color:#ffb6b6; text-align: center;" | R || [[Texas]] || style="background-color:#ffffff;" | Yea

|-

| {{sortname|Jon|Corzine}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[New Jersey]] || style="background-color:#ffdd88;" | Nay

|-

| {{sortname|Larry|Craig}} || style="background-color:#ffb6b6; text-align: center;" | R || [[Idaho]] || style="background-color:#ffffff;" | Yea

|-

| {{sortname|Mike|Crapo}} || style="background-color:#ffb6b6; text-align: center;" | R || [[Idaho]] || style="background-color:#ffffff;" | Yea

|-

| {{sortname|Mark|Dayton}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[Minnesota]] || style="background-color:#ffdd88;" | Nay

|-

| {{sortname|Jim|DeMint}} || style="background-color:#ffb6b6; text-align: center;" | R || [[South Carolina]] || style="background-color:#ffffff;" | Yea

|-

| {{sortname|Mike|DeWine}} || style="background-color:#ffb6b6; text-align: center;" | R || [[Ohio]] || style="background-color:#ffffff;" | Yea

|-

| {{sortname|Christopher|Dodd}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[Connecticut]] || style="background-color:#ffffff;" | Yea

|-

| {{sortname|Elizabeth|Dole}} || style="background-color:#ffb6b6; text-align: center;" | R || [[North Carolina]] || style="background-color:#ffffff;" | Yea

|-

| {{sortname|Pete|Domenici}} || style="background-color:#ffb6b6; text-align: center;" | R || [[New Mexico]] || style="background-color:#ffffff;" | Yea

|-

| {{sortname|Byron|Dorgan}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[North Dakota]] || style="background-color:#ffffff;" | Yea

|-

| {{sortname|Dick|Durbin}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[Illinois]] || style="background-color:#ffdd88;" | Nay

|-

| {{sortname|John|Ensign}} || style="background-color:#ffb6b6; text-align: center;" | R || [[Nevada]] || style="background-color:#ffffff;" | Yea

|-

| {{sortname|Mike|Enzi}} || style="background-color:#ffb6b6; text-align: center;" | R || [[Wyoming]] || style="background-color:#ffffff;" | Yea

|-

| {{sortname|Russ|Feingold}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[Wisconsin]] || style="background-color:#ffffff;" | Yea

|-

| {{sortname|Dianne|Feinstein}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[California]] || style="background-color:#ffdd88;" | Nay

|-

| {{sortname|Bill|Frist}} || style="background-color:#ffb6b6; text-align: center;" | R || [[Tennessee]] || style="background-color:#ffffff;" | Yea

|-

| {{sortname|Lindsey|Graham}} || style="background-color:#ffb6b6; text-align: center;" | R || [[South Carolina]] || style="background-color:#ffffff;" | Yea

|-

| {{sortname|Chuck|Grassley}} || style="background-color:#ffb6b6; text-align: center;" | R || [[Iowa]] || style="background-color:#ffffff;" | Yea

|-

| {{sortname|Judd|Gregg}} || style="background-color:#ffb6b6; text-align: center;" | R || [[New Hampshire]] || style="background-color:#ffffff;" | Yea

|-

| {{sortname|Chuck|Hagel}} || style="background-color:#ffb6b6; text-align: center;" | R || [[Nebraska]] || style="background-color:#ffffff;" | Yea

|-

| {{sortname|Tom|Harkin}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[Iowa]] || style="background-color:#ffdd88;" | Nay

|-

| {{sortname|Orrin|Hatch}} || style="background-color:#ffb6b6; text-align: center;" | R || [[Utah]] || style="background-color:#ffffff;" | Yea

|-

| {{sortname|Kay Bailey|Hutchison}} || style="background-color:#ffb6b6; text-align: center;" | R || [[Texas]] || style="background-color:#ffffff;" | Yea

|-

| {{sortname|Jim|Inhofe}} || style="background-color:#ffb6b6; text-align: center;" | R || [[Oklahoma]] || style="background-color:#ffffff;" | Yea

|-

| {{sortname|Daniel|Inouye}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[Hawaii]] || style="background-color:#ffdd88;" | Nay

|-

| {{sortname|Johnny|Isakson}} || style="background-color:#ffb6b6; text-align: center;" | R || [[Georgia (U.S. state)|Georgia]] || style="background-color:#ffffff;" | Yea

|-

| {{sortname|Jim|Jeffords}} || style="background-color:#dddddd; text-align: center;" | I || [[Vermont]] || style="background-color:#ffffff;" | Yea

|-

| {{sortname|Tim|Johnson|Tim Johnson (South Dakota politician)}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[South Dakota]] || style="background-color:#ffffff;" | Yea

|-

| {{sortname|Ted|Kennedy}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[Massachusetts]] || style="background-color:#ffdd88;" | Nay

|-

| {{sortname|John|Kerry}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[Massachusetts]] || style="background-color:#ffdd88;" | Nay

|-

| {{sortname|Herb|Kohl}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[Wisconsin]] || style="background-color:#ffffff;" | Yea

|-

| {{sortname|Jon|Kyl}} || style="background-color:#ffb6b6; text-align: center;" | R || [[Arizona]] || style="background-color:#ffffff;" | Yea

|-

| {{sortname|Mary|Landrieu}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[Louisiana]] || style="background-color:#ffffff;" | Yea

|-

| {{sortname|Frank|Lautenberg}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[New Jersey]] || style="background-color:#ffdd88;" | Nay

|-

| {{sortname|Patrick|Leahy}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[Vermont]] || style="background-color:#ffffff;" | Yea

|-

| {{sortname|Carl|Levin}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[Michigan]] || style="background-color:#ffffff;" | Yea

|-

| {{sortname|Joe|Lieberman}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[Connecticut]] || style="background-color:#ffffff;" | Yea

|-

| {{sortname|Blanche|Lincoln}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[Arkansas]] || style="background-color:#ffffff;" | Yea

|-

| {{sortname|Trent|Lott}} || style="background-color:#ffb6b6; text-align: center;" | R || [[Mississippi]] || style="background-color:#ffffff;" | Yea

|-

| {{sortname|Richard|Lugar}} || style="background-color:#ffb6b6; text-align: center;" | R || [[Indiana]] || style="background-color:#ffffff;" | Yea

|-

| {{sortname|Mel|Martínez}} || style="background-color:#ffb6b6; text-align: center;" | R || [[Florida]] || style="background-color:#ffffff;" | Yea

|-

| {{sortname|John|McCain}} || style="background-color:#ffb6b6; text-align: center;" | R || [[Arizona]] || style="background-color:#ffffff;" | Yea

|-

| {{sortname|Mitch|McConnell}} || style="background-color:#ffb6b6; text-align: center;" | R || [[Kentucky]] || style="background-color:#ffffff;" | Yea

|-

| {{sortname|Barbara|Mikulski}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[Maryland]] || style="background-color:#ffdd88;" | Nay

|-

| {{sortname|Lisa|Murkowski}} || style="background-color:#ffb6b6; text-align: center;" | R || [[Alaska]] || style="background-color:#ffffff;" | Yea

|-

| {{sortname|Patty|Murray}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[Washington (state)|Washington]] || style="background-color:#ffffff;" | Yea

|-

| {{sortname|Ben|Nelson}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[Nebraska]] || style="background-color:#ffffff;" | Yea

|-

| {{sortname|Bill|Nelson|Bill Nelson (politician)}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[Florida]] || style="background-color:#ffffff;" | Yea

|-

| {{sortname|Barack|Obama}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[Illinois]] || style="background-color:#ffdd88;" | Nay

|-

| {{sortname|Mark|Pryor}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[Arkansas]] || style="background-color:#ffffff;" | Yea

|-

| {{sortname|Jack|Reed|Jack Reed (Rhode Island politician)}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[Rhode Island]] || style="background-color:#ffdd88;" | Nay

|-

| {{sortname|Harry|Reid}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[Nevada]] || style="background-color:#ffdd88;" | Nay

|-

| {{sortname|Pat|Roberts}} || style="background-color:#ffb6b6; text-align: center;" | R || [[Kansas]] || style="background-color:#ffffff;" | Yea

|-

| {{sortname|Jay|Rockefeller}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[West Virginia]] || style="background-color:#ffffff;" | Yea

|-

| {{sortname|Ken|Salazar}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[Colorado]] || style="background-color:#ffffff;" | Yea

|-

| {{sortname|Rick|Santorum}} || style="background-color:#ffb6b6; text-align: center;" | R || [[Pennsylvania]] || style="background-color:#ffffff;" | Yea

|-

| {{sortname|Paul|Sarbanes}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[Maryland]] || style="background-color:#ffdd88;" | Nay

|-

| {{sortname|Chuck|Schumer}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[New York (state)|New York]] || style="background-color:#ffdd88;" | Nay

|-

| {{sortname|Jeff|Sessions}} || style="background-color:#ffb6b6; text-align: center;" | R || [[Alabama]] || style="background-color:#ffffff;" | Yea

|-

| {{sortname|Richard|Shelby}} || style="background-color:#ffb6b6; text-align: center;" | R || [[Alabama]] || style="background-color:#ffffff;" | Yea

|-

| {{sortname|Gordon H.|Smith}} || style="background-color:#ffb6b6; text-align: center;" | R || [[Oregon]] || style="background-color:#ffffff;" | Yea

|-

| {{sortname|Olympia|Snowe}} || style="background-color:#ffb6b6; text-align: center;" | R || [[Maine]] || style="background-color:#ffffff;" | Yea

|-

| {{sortname|Arlen|Specter}} || style="background-color:#ffb6b6; text-align: center;" | R || [[Pennsylvania]] || style="background-color:#ffffff;" | Yea

|-

| {{sortname|Debbie|Stabenow}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[Michigan]] || style="background-color:#ffdd88;" | Nay

|-

| {{sortname|Ted|Stevens}} || style="background-color:#ffb6b6; text-align: center;" | R || [[Alaska]] || style="background-color:#ffffff;" | Yea

|-

| {{sortname|John E.|Sununu}} || style="background-color:#ffb6b6; text-align: center;" | R || [[New Hampshire]] || style="background-color:#ffffff;" | Yea

|-

| {{sortname|Jim|Talent}} || style="background-color:#ffb6b6; text-align: center;" | R || [[Missouri]] || style="background-color:#ffffff;" | Yea

|-

| {{sortname|Craig L.|Thomas}} || style="background-color:#ffb6b6; text-align: center;" | R || [[Wyoming]] || style="background-color:#ffffff;" | Yea

|-

| {{sortname|John|Thune}} || style="background-color:#ffb6b6; text-align: center;" | R || [[South Dakota]] || style="background-color:#ffffff;" | Yea

|-

| {{sortname|David|Vitter}} || style="background-color:#ffb6b6; text-align: center;" | R || [[Louisiana]] || style="background-color:#ffffff;" | Yea

|-

| {{sortname|George|Voinovich}} || style="background-color:#ffb6b6; text-align: center;" | R || [[Ohio]] || style="background-color:#ffffff;" | Yea

|-

| {{sortname|John|Warner}} || style="background-color:#ffb6b6; text-align: center;" | R || [[Virginia]] || style="background-color:#ffffff;" | Yea

|-

| {{sortname|Ron|Wyden}} || style="background-color:#b0ceff; text-align: center;" | D || [[Oregon]] || style="background-color:#ffffff;" | Yea

|}

{{center|1='''Sources:''' <ref>{{cite web| url=https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/109-2005/s245| title=On the Nomination PN801: John G. Roberts, Jr., of Maryland, to be Chief Justice of the United States| series=Senate Vote #245 in 2005 (109th Congress)| website=govtrack.us| date=September 29, 2005| accessdate=June 8, 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite news| title=Senate Roll Call on Roberts Nomination| url=https://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/29/politics/politicsspecial1/senate-roll-call-on-roberts-nomination.html| date=September 29, 2005| newspaper=The New York Times| accessdate=June 8, 2019}}</ref>}}

|}

==Sources==

{{wikinews|President Bush nominates John Roberts as Chief Justice of the U.S.}}

==See also==

===White House documents===

* [[George W. Bush Supreme Court candidates]]

*"Supreme Court Nomination and Withdrawal Sent to the Senate" (September 6, 2005) [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/09/20050906-2.html]

* [[Roberts Court]]

*"Supreme Court Nomination Sent to the Senate" (July 29, 2005) [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/07/20050729-6.html]

*"President Nominates Judge Roberts to be Supreme Court Chief Justice" (September 5, 2005) [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/09/20050905.html]

*"President Announces Judge John Roberts as Supreme Court Nominee" (July 19, 2005)[http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/07/20050719-7.html]

===News articles=References==

{{Reflist}}

*"Appellate judge Roberts is Bush high-court pick." MSNBC. July 19, 2005. [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8625492]

*Argetsinger, Amy, and Jo Becker. "The nominee as a young pragmatist: under Reagan, Roberts tackled tough issues." ''Washington Post''. July 22, 2005. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/21/AR2005072101782.html?nav=hcmodule]

*Barbash, Fred, et al: "Bush to nominate Judge John G. Roberts Jr." ''Washington Post''. July 19, 2005. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/19/AR2005071901426.html]

*Becker, Jo, and R. Jeffrey Smith. "Record of accomplishment&mdash;and some contradictions." ''Washington Post''. July 20, 2005. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/19/AR2005071902065.html]

*Bumuller, Elisabeth, and David Stout: "President chooses conservative judge as nominee to court." ''New York Times''. July 19, 2005. [http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/19/politics/politicsspecial1/19cnd-judge.html?hp&ex=1121832000&en=856520306462d3af&ei=5094&partner=homepage]

*"Bush: Meeting with Roberts during recount wasn't political." Associated Press. July 23, 2005. [http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/News/Politics/Florida/03FloridaPOLF01072305.htm]

*Entous, Adam. "Bush picks conservative Roberts for Supreme Court." Reuters. July 19, 2005. [http://today.reuters.com/business/newsarticle.aspx?type=tnBusinessNews&storyID=nN19377424&imageid=&cap=]

*Kallestad, Brent. "Roberts helped counsel Jeb Bush." Associated Press. July 21, 2005. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/21/AR2005072101961.html?nav=hcmodule]

*Lane, Charles. "Federalist affiliation misstated: Roberts does not belong to group." ''Washington Post''. July 21, 2005. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/20/AR2005072002431.html?nav=hcmodule]

*Lane, Charles. "Short record as judge is under a microscope." ''Washington Post''. July 21, 2005. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/20/AR2005072002322.html]

*Groppe, Maureen, and John Tuohy. "If you ask John where he's from, he says Indiana." ''Indianapolis Star''. July 20, 2005. [http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050720/NEWS02/507200476]

*McFeatters, Ann. "John G. Roberts Jr. is Bush choice for Supreme Court." ''Pittsburgh Post-Gazette''. July 19, 2005. [http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05200/540299.stm]

*Riechmann, Deb. "Federal judge Roberts is Bush's choice." Associated Press. July 20, 2005. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5152882,00.html]

*"Roberts: A smart, self-effacing 'Eagle Scout.'" Associated Press. July 20, 2005. [http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/07/20/roberts.profile.ap/]

*"Who Is John G. Roberts Jr.?" ABC News. July 19, 2005. [http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/news%5C071905_nw_john_roberts.html]

==External links==

===Government/official biographies===

{{wikinews|President Bush nominates John Roberts as Chief Justice of the U.S.}}

*"President announces Judge John Roberts as Supreme Court nominee." Office of the Press Secretary, Executive Office of the President. [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/07/20050719-7.html]

*[https://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/13/politics/politicsspecial1/roberts_textindex.html Video and transcripts from the Roberts confirmation hearings] - ''[[The New York Times]]''

*"Roberts, John G., Jr." Federal Judicial Center. [http://air.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=3001]

*"John G. Roberts biography." Office of Legal Policy, U.S. Department of Justice. [http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/robertsbio.htm ]

*"Biographical Sketches of the Judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit." United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. [http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/internet.nsf/Content/Stub+-+Biographical+Sketches+of+the+Judges+of+U.S.+Court+of+Appeals+for+the+DC+Circuit]

*John G. Roberts Questionnaire for Appeals Court Confirmation Hearing (p. 297-339) and responses to Questions from Various Senators (p. 443-461) [http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/pdf/108hrg/89324.pdf] (large [[Portable Document Format|PDF]] file)

{{Presidency of George W. Bush}}

===Other===

{{Nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States}}

*Coffin, Shannen W. "Meet John Roberts: The President Makes the Best Choice." ''National Review Online''. July 19, 2005. [http://www.nationalreview.com/coffin/coffin200507192142.asp]

*"Former Hogan & Hartson partner nominated for the U.S. Supreme Court." Hogan & Hartson, LLP. July 20, 2005. [http://www.hhlaw.com/site/news.aspx?Show=538]

*Goldman, Jerry. "John G. Roberts, Jr." [[Oyez]]. [http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/legal_entity/850/]

*"John G. Roberts, Jr. Fact Sheet" La Lumiere School. [http://www.lalumiere.org/about/roberts.htm]

*"John G. Roberts federal campaign contributions." Newsmeat.com. July 19, 2005. [http://www.newsmeat.com/judiciary_political_donations/John_G_Roberts.php]

*"John G. Roberts Jr." [[DKosopedia]]. July 19, 2005. [http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/John_G._Roberts_Jr.]

*"Progress for America: Support for the Confirmation of John G. Roberts" [http://judgeroberts.com/]

*"Report of the Alliance for Justice: Opposition to the Confirmation of John G. Roberts to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit." [[Alliance for Justice]]. [http://www.independentjudiciary.com/resources/docs/John_Roberts_Report.pdf] ([[Portable Document Format|PDF]] file)

*"Wexler: Bush's Supreme Court pick insulting to disenfranchised Florida voters." Office of Representative Robert Wexler. July 20, 2004. [http://www.wexler.house.gov/pressreleases/072005.htm]

==Notes==

<!-- Instructions for adding a footnote:

NOTE: Footnotes in this article use names, not numbers. Please see [[Wikipedia:Footnote3]] for details.

1) Assign your footnote a unique name, for example TheSun_Dec9.

2) Add the macro {{ref|TheSun_Dec9}} to the body of the article, where you want the new footnote.

3) Take note of the name of the footnote that immediately proceeds yours in the article body.

4) Add *{{Note|TheSun_Dec9}} to the list, immediately below the footnote you noted in step3.

5) Multiple footnotes to the same reference will not work: you must insert two uniquely-named footnotes.

NOTE: It is important to add the Footnote in the right order in the list.

-->

*{{note|Yahoo}} {{Citenews| org=Associated Press| title=Roberts Questioned Lifetime Appointments| date=[[2005-08-05]]|url=http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050805/ap_on_go_su_co/roberts_court_tenure_1}}

<!--READ ME!! PLEASE DO NOT JUST ADD NEW NOTES AT THE BOTTOM. See the instructions above on ordering. -->

==External links==

* [http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/26jan20041230/www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/pdf/108hrg/92548.pdf Transcript of Senate Judiciary Committee hearing] on the nomination of John Roberts to the D.C. circuit (Roberts Q&A on pages 17-79, [http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_senate_hearings&docid=f:92548.wais plain text available here])

* [http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/20/politics/politicsspecial1/20judge.html Lewis, Neil A. "An Ultimate Capital Insider." New York Times. July 20, 2005]

* [http://pview.findlaw.com/view/2581160_1 FindLaw Lawyer Profile]

* [http://www.anastigmatix.net/reference/JGR.html Complete list of Circuit Judge Roberts's opinions for the DC Circuit (last updated 26 July 2005)]

* [http://www.law.umich.edu/library/news/topics/roberts/robertsindex.htm University of Michigan Law Library fulltext links]

* [http://www.fed-soc.org/ Federalist Society]

* [http://www.rcfp.org/news/documents/20050721-robertsrec.html A summary of media-related cases handled by Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr.] from The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, July 21, 2005

* [http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/july-dec05/roberts_7-22.html Experts Analyze Supreme Court Nominee John Roberts' Legal Record]

* Petition and advocacy sites in support of Roberts' confirmation:

** [http://www.afa.net/petitions/confirmroberts.asp American Family Association]

** [https://www.aclj.org/Petition/default.aspx?SC=3034&AC=1 American Center for Law &amp; Justice]

* Petition and advocacy sites opposed to Roberts' confirmation:

**[http://democrats.senate.gov/askroberts/ democrats.senate.gov/AskRoberts]

** [http://petition.savethecourt.org/ People for the American Way]

** [http://political.moveon.org/roberts/info.html MoveOn.org]

** [http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/507595787 NARAL]

* Statement on Future of Privacy

** [http://www.epic.org/privacy/justices/roberts/0905letter.pdf EPIC]

*[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/19/AR2005071900870.html Profile of the Nominee] - ''[[The Washington Post]]''

*[http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/11/politics/politicsspecial1/11questions.html?ex=1284091200&en=abf98b4ef43253a8&ei=5090 A Senate Hearing Primer] - ''[[The New York Times]]''

*[http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/13/politics/politicsspecial1/roberts_textindex.html Video and Transcripts From the Roberts Confirmation Hearings] - ''[[The New York Times]]''

*[http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/ SCOTUSblog]

*[http://www.sctnomination.com/blog/ Supreme Court Nomination Blog]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Roberts, John, Supreme Court nomination and hearings}}

<!--This page is about Roberts' Nomination and hearings. He has his own article that goes under the chief justices group -->

[[Category:United2005 Statesin SupremeAmerican Courtlaw]]

[[Category:2005 in American politics]]

[[Category:109th United States Congress]]

[[Category:Presidency of George W. Bush]]

[[Category:Nominations to the United States Supreme Court]]