Senator Ron Wyden

Click here to listen to Ron's speech
Click here to watch Ron's speech

WYDEN WILL VOTE TO CONFIRM ROBERTS
AS CHIEF JUSTICE OF U.S. SUPREME COURT

September 28, 2005

Washington, DC – U.S. Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) announced today that he will vote to confirm Judge John Roberts as Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. In announcing his decision, Wyden delivered the following remarks on the Senate floor today.

Wyden Statement on the Nomination of Judge John Roberts
September 28, 2005

Five years have passed since the Presidential election of 2000, and legitimate questions about the outcome of that campaign have left too much of America too divided.

Legitimate questions about the outcome of that election gave rise to an ever-growing polarization between so-called red and blue states, between liberals and conservatives, and between Democrats and Republicans in the Congress. And despite a somewhat more convincing outcome in the 2004 Presidential election, the divisions caused by the events of 2000 show little sign of abating. Having closely observed this widening divide, I now wonder whether Judge Roberts’ confirmation will add to the bitterness and distrust of the federal government, or whether it might serve to remind the people -- and the lawmakers they elect -- that we cannot move forward as a nation if we remain dedicated to tearing each other down.

This is my first vote on a nominee to the Supreme Court of the United States, and my obligation as articulated in the Constitution is to either consent or not consent to a choice specifically entrusted to the elected President of the United States. Some of the policy watchdogs I respect the most, and agree with on so very many issues, have asked that I oppose Judge Roberts because he is not one of us; because he is too conservative; because he is young; because he may prove effective. “He is not who we would choose,” they say, and on that point, I am in full agreement.

Should the test to confirm a Chief Justice be, “He is not who we would choose?” I ask my friends to imagine the mess we will have left for our nation if the Senate uses this test and votes solely on the basis of a nominee’s political beliefs.

Friends who a year ago said, “We don’t want ideologues appointed to the Supreme Court,” now want John Roberts and the next nominee to show up at the witness table and submit to an ideological litmus test.

Here’s my message to those friends: a sword forged in ideology in 2005 can be used against a progressive nominee in 2009 with equal disregard for the Constitution and the individual.

In 2008, I fully intend to work harder than ever before to elect a President who rejects the dangerous priorities that have led us to war in Iraq and to an energy policy that is folly, that assures our continued dependence on foreign oil. Should this new, Democratic President have to contend with a Republican Senate majority, he or she had better hope that the judicial nominations of 2005 did not become purely ideology-driven contests. If these debates are purely partisan, our future will include constitutional bedlam whenever a Supreme Court opening occurs while the Senate is controlled by the opposition party.

I reject the suggestion that a Republican nominee is per se objectionable. A number of moderate justices nominated by Republican Presidents belie such a claim. The decision that each Senator must make should be based on the judicial nominee that is before the Senate, not the one that we wish were before us.

To put this into historical perspective, under the advice and consent responsibility assigned to the Senate, the President’s judicial nominees to the Supreme Court have traditionally been given a large degree of deference. For instance, in spite of the divisive national debates surrounding gays in the military, universal health care, Travelgate, Filegate and the Whitewater investigation, this deference translated into 96 votes for Justice Ginsburg and 87 votes for Justice Breyer when their nominations came to a vote before the Senate. And yet these are two of the most progressive voices in the over 200-year history of the high court.

When I had the opportunity to meet with Judge Roberts in my office this past August, I pressed him to tell me how he viewed some of the issues that have so bitterly divided Americans. The answers that Judge Roberts gave me during that hour we spent together left me with the impression that he will be his own man on the Court.

Here are my judgments about the individual before us now:

One, on the basis of his public testimony, it is hard to see Judge Roberts as a man who will walk into the white-pillared building across the street and set about tearing apart the fabric of our society.

Two, on the basis of his public testimony, it is hard to see him as a judicial activist who would place ideological purity or a particular agenda above or ahead of the need for thoughtful legal reasoning.

Three, on the basis of his public testimony, it is hard to see John Roberts as a divisive, confrontational extremist who would try to further exploit the divisions in our society.

What I saw in his public testimony and in our lengthy private meeting is an intelligent, thoughtful man – and a conservative man – with a tempered view of the role of government. At his Judiciary Committee hearings, nothing he said conflicted with what he had told me in private.

In addition to meeting with him, I have scrutinized Judge Roberts and his record closely – considering his

Reagan-era documents, reading the news analysis printed in papers across the country, listening to the hearings and reviewing the transcripts as well.

No one disputes that Judge Roberts has a brilliant legal mind. My analysis of his record leads me to conclude that he is not cut from the same originalist cloth as Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia. He does not believe the words of the Constitution are fossilized, leaving only a one-size-fits-all, 18th-century remedy for every problem that our society confronts today.

It is hard not to get the sense that he believes in limited government.

Back in March, I led the effort in the Senate to block attempts to dictate a specific medical treatment in Terri Schiavo’s case because I believe that the Constitution affords families the right to decide these matters privately. This is an area in which the federal government has no business intruding.

In involving itself in the Schiavo case, Congress was inappropriately meddling and blatantly ignoring the limits of its Constitutional authority.

I believe the Terri Schiavo case is just the first of many that will arrive at the Supreme Court’s doorstep. In my view, most of these cases will involve one person and passionately held views. Demographic trends and improvements in medical technologies assure there will be many.

Under the circumstances, I felt that I had a duty to examine how Judge Roberts saw end-of-life issues in the context of the Constitution and whether he would be willing to manipulate its meaning to authorize government intrusion in private, family matters.

So when I met with him in August, we discussed end-of-life issues at length. Not because this was a litmus test – I don't believe in litmus tests – but because I felt that it was important to carefully consider Roberts' judicial temperament on this important issue.

He did not say how he would have handled the Schiavo case or any case before the Court; however, Judge Roberts did say quite a bit that made a lot of sense to me and, I think, the vast majority of Americans.

Judge Roberts agreed that there is a Constitutionally-based privacy right and that, while the scope of the privacy right is still being defined in the end-of-life context, he said that when approaching the issue, he starts with the supposition that a person has the right to be left alone and that their liberty interest should be factored in as well.

At his hearing, he reiterated this position – stating that a right to privacy exists in the Constitution. He stated that privacy is a component of the “liberty” protected by the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. And he stated that this liberty interest is protected substantively as well as procedurally.

While discussing the Schiavo tragedy during our August meeting, I also asked him about Congress’ authority to legislate a particular remedy in a particular case and he expressed concern about judicial independence. It was apparent to me that he understands that there are constitutional limits on the recent enthusiasm of Congress to prescribe particular remedies in particular cases.

Concerning the states’ right to regulate medical practice and the scope of the Tenth Amendment, Judge
Roberts stated that he believed the framers expected states to do most of the regulating and that they expected most regulation to be state-based. In his view, the basic genius of the federal system is that it affords different states the ability to approach problems in a way that’s best suited to their different needs – imposing uniformity across the country would stifle the genius of the founding fathers.

Judge Roberts also told me he attaches great importance to the legislative history in interpreting law. He repeated this point several times during the public hearings. Those who have closely studied former Attorney General Ashcroft’s challenge to Oregon’s physician-assisted suicide law know that there is not one word in the Controlled Substances Act, the law he used to launch his case, indicating the Controlled Substances Act was aimed at or should be used to overturn or undermine the right of states to regulate medical practice within their borders.

And on the extremely important matter of a woman’s right to choose, I asked Judge Roberts about Roe. He did not offer specific comments, but his response indicated he would not enter the Court with an “agenda,” and that he would respect the Court’s precedents. In the public hearings, he also said he personally agreed with the conclusion of the Griswold and Eisenstat decisions, which held that the privacy right protects the right of individuals to use birth control.

His opinions on the issues that matter indicate that he is a very intelligent, thoughtful man with a tempered view of the role of the federal government.

Judge Roberts’ combination of temperament and intelligence give him the potential to be a conciliatory voice at a divisive time. He has the skills to reach across the divisions in America to show that justice can be a healing force for the wounds that cut our society so deeply these days. He can help to unify the country by building a record of well-reasoned opinions, grounded in the rule of law, not ideology. He will receive my vote tomorrow to be the next Chief Justice of the United States.

I wish to make one last important point. There is one other vacancy on the Court, and the President is expected to send forth his nominee soon. My intention to support Judge Roberts should in no way be construed as a weathervane for how I might vote on the next nominee. In the past, I have not hesitated to vote against several of the President’s nominees to the courts of appeals when they carry the ideological and activist baggage I believe would be disruptive to law and society. If the President puts forward a nominee to replace Justice O’Connor who is unlikely to ably and respectfully fill her shoes, I will vigorously oppose that nomination.

I began by voicing my question about the impact of this nomination on the body politic of our nation. Among the many awesome duties of the Chief Justice, no duty is of greater importance than the duty to unify our nation when Americans find themselves in disagreement. Different chief justices have shouldered this burden with varying degrees of success. This ability to unify is what is most sorely needed at this moment in our nation’s history and I am of the opinion that Judge Roberts possesses the nature and desire to unify the court, and with it, our nation, as he tackles the legal issues before him. I wish him wisdom, diplomacy, and moderation as he prepares to assume this critical role.

# # #