John Roberts
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- This article is about the Chief Justice of the United States. For other people named John Roberts, see John Roberts (disambiguation).
| John Glover Roberts Jr.
<tr style="text-align: center;"><td colspan="2">Image:Official roberts CJ.jpg | |
| Born | January 27, 1955 Buffalo, New York |
|---|---|
John Glover Roberts Jr. (born January 27, 1955) is the seventeenth and current Chief Justice of the United States. Before joining the Supreme Court on September 29, 2005, Roberts was a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Previously, he spent 14 years in private law practice and held positions in Republican administrations in the U.S. Department of Justice and Office of the White House Counsel.
Contents |
[edit] Early years
Roberts was born in Buffalo, New York, on January 27, 1955, son of John G. Roberts and Rosemary Podrasky. His father was an executive with Bethlehem Steel. When Roberts was in second grade, his family moved to the beachside town of Long Beach, Indiana. He grew up in a Roman Catholic home along with three sisters: Kathy, Peggy, and Barbara.
Roberts attended La Lumiere School, a Catholic boarding school in LaPorte, Indiana and was an excellent student and athlete. He studied six years of Latin and some French, and was known for his devotion to his studies. He was also captain of his football team (here he referred to himself as a "slow-footed linebacker"), and also was a Regional Champion in wrestling. He also participated in choir and drama, co-edited the school newspaper, and served on the athletic council and the Executive Committee of the Student Council.
[edit] Education and memberships
Roberts graduated first in his high school class as a National Merit Scholar. Following high school, Roberts entered Harvard College as a sophomore, initially planning to become a history professor. Roberts spent his summers working in a steel mill to help pay for college. While a student at Harvard, he received the William Scott Ferguson award for his essay, Marxism and Bolshevism: Theory and Practice. He received a bachelor's degree in history summa cum laude and with Phi Beta Kappa honors in 1976. Roberts then attended Harvard Law School, where he served as managing editor of the Harvard Law Review and graduated magna cum laude in 1979. At Harvard Law, Roberts befriended and later was roommates with Richard J. Lazarus, now Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center and a noted environmental law scholar.<ref>http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4763091</ref>
Roberts is currently a member of the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers, the American Law Institute, the Edward Coke Appellate American Inn of Court and the National Legal Center for the Public Interest.<ref>Lane, Charles. "Federalist affiliation misstated: Roberts does not belong to group." Washington Post. July 21 2005. [1]
Although in the days immediately following his nomination Roberts was widely reported as being a member of the Federalist Society—by media outlets including CNN, the Los Angeles Times, the Legal Times, and the Washington Post—and he has spoken at Federalist Society events, Roberts subsequently stated that he never has paid the group's $50 membership fee, and does not recall ever having been a member, although the 1997–1998 directory lists him as a member of the steering committee.</ref> He serves on the Federal Appellate Rules Advisory Committee.
Roberts is married to Jane Sullivan Roberts,<ref>Jane Roberts Biography. Retrieved on February 14, 2006.</ref> a lawyer, former legal counsel for Feminists for Life, and current partner at Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP. They live in the Washington, DC suburb of Chevy Chase, Maryland, in an upscale neighborhood. John Roberts is a practicing mainstream Roman Catholic. He and his family worship at Church of the Little Flower. This parish is one attended by many Catholic officials in all three branches of government and on all ends of the political spectrum. The Roberts family adopted two unrelated infants in 2000: Josephine ("Josie") and Jack Roberts. Jack's dancing during Bush's White House introduction of his father brought the four-year-old international media attention and praise from the President as "a fellow who's comfortable with the cameras." <ref>http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050930/news_1n30jack.html</ref> In an address at the University of Miami, Roberts stated, "People think Jack was dancing — he was not dancing, he was being spider man, shooting the webs off." <ref>http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/SupremeCourt/story?id=2651063&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312</ref>
[edit] Private practice
After graduating from law school, Roberts served as a law clerk for Judge Henry Friendly on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals for one year. From 1980 to 1981, he clerked for then-Associate Justice William Rehnquist on the United States Supreme Court. From 1981 to 1982, he served in the Reagan administration as a Special Assistant to U.S. Attorney General William French Smith. From 1982 to 1986, Roberts served as Associate Counsel to the President under White House Counsel Fred Fielding.
Roberts entered private law practice in 1986 as an associate at the Washington, D.C.-based law firm of Hogan & Hartson, but left to serve in the first Bush administration as Principal Deputy Solicitor General from 1989 to 1993. During this time, Roberts argued 39 cases for the government before the Supreme Court, prevailing in 25 of them. He represented 18 states in United States v. Microsoft.
In 1992, George H. W. Bush nominated Roberts to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, but no Senate vote was held, and Roberts's nomination expired when Bush left office after losing the 1992 presidential election. Roberts returned to Hogan & Hartson as a partner, and became the head of the firm's appellate practice, in addition to serving as an adjunct faculty member at the Georgetown University Law Center. In his capacity as head of Hogan & Hartson's appellate practice, Roberts argued several cases before the Supreme Court:
[edit] U.S. Court of Appeals
George W. Bush nominated Roberts to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on May 9, 2001, but the nomination — along with 29 others — failed to make it out of the Democrat-controlled U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary. He was renominated on January 7, 2003, to replace James L. Buckley. His nomination was approved by the Judiciary Committee by a vote of 16 to 3, with Senators Richard Durbin, Charles Schumer and Ted Kennedy opposing. However, he was approved by the Senate under unanimous consent and he received his commission on June 2, 2003.
[edit] Personal finances
At the time Roberts left private practice to join the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, he reported in a financial disclosure filing in 2005 that he earned a salary of $1,044,399, had many stocks (including pharmaceutical and technology investments, such as holdings in Pfizer and Procter & Gamble). Roberts' two-story white colonial was recently assessed at $891,000, according to tax records of Montgomery County, Maryland. Roberts also holds a one-eighth interest in a cottage in the village of Knocklong, County Limerick, Republic of Ireland, his wife's ancestral homeland, valued at $15,000 or less.<ref>"Roberts: A smart, self-effacing 'Eagle Scout.'" Associated Press. July 20 2005. [2]</ref>
[edit] U.S. Supreme Court
[edit] Nomination and confirmation
On July 19, 2005, President Bush nominated Roberts to the U.S. Supreme Court, to fill a vacancy which would be left by the announced retirement of Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Roberts was the first Supreme Court nominee since Stephen Breyer in 1994. Bush announced Roberts's nomination in a live, nationwide television broadcast from the East Room of the White House at 9 pm Eastern Daylight Time.
Following the September 3 2005 death of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, Bush withdrew Roberts's nomination as O'Connor's successor, and on September 6, announced Roberts's new nomination to the position of Chief Justice. Bush asked the Senate to expedite Roberts's confirmation hearings in order to fill the vacancy by the beginning of the Supreme Court's session in early October. John Roberts follows in the footsteps of former Chief Justice Warren Burger, who had a very similar judicial philosophy to his own. Burger, like Roberts, was also elevated to the position of Chief Justice directly from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
On September 22 the Senate Judiciary Committee approved Roberts's nomination by a vote of 13-5, with Senators Ted Kennedy, Richard Durbin, Charles Schumer, Joe Biden and Dianne Feinstein the dissenting votes. Roberts was confirmed by the full Senate on September 29, passing by a margin of 78-22. All Republicans and the lone Independent voted for Roberts; the Democrats split evenly, 22 for and 22 against. Roberts was confirmed by what was, historically, a narrow margin for a Supreme Court justice. This reflects the increasing politicization and partisanship of Supreme Court nominations, though this margin was greater than the 1986 65-33 vote confirming Roberts' predecessor, William Rehnquist, as Chief Justice.<ref>"Supreme Court Nominations, 1789-2005: Actions by the Senate, the Judiciary Committee, and the President" Congressional Research Service January 5, 2005 [3]</ref>
[edit] Supreme Court career
On September 29, just hours after his Senate confirmation, Roberts took the Constitutional oath of office, which was administered by senior Associate Justice John Paul Stevens at the White House. He took the judicial oath provided for by the Judiciary Act of 1789 on October 3 2005 at the United States Supreme Court building, prior to the first oral arguments of the 2005 term. At 50, Roberts is the third-youngest person to have become Chief Justice (John Jay was appointed at age 44 in 1789 while John Marshall was appointed at age 45 in 1801). However, many Associate Justices, such as Clarence Thomas (appointed at age 43) and William Douglas (appointed at age 41 in 1939), have joined the Court at a younger age than Roberts.
Roberts presided over his first oral arguments on October 3, 2005, when the Court began its 2005-2006 session. Ending a week's worth of idle speculation, Roberts opted to wear a plain black robe on his first day, eschewing the gold sleeve-bars added to the Chief Justice's robes by his predecessor.
On January 17, 2006, the Roberts Court decided the first case to have been argued before it: Gonzales v. Oregon. In that case, the Supreme Court held that the Oregon law permitting physician-assisted suicide did not conflict with the Controlled Substances Act. The majority consisted of Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Kennedy, O'Connor, Souter, and Stevens. Roberts joined Justices Scalia and Thomas in dissenting from the Court's decision.
On March 6, 2006, Roberts wrote the unanimous decision in Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights that colleges that accept federal money must allow military recruiters on campus, despite university objections to the Pentagon's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays in the military. Roberts wrote his first dissent in the case Georgia v. Randolph, decided March 22, 2006. The majority's decision prohibited police from searching a home if one occupant objects while another consents. Roberts' dissent expressed concern that this might invite dire consequences for one spouse who attempts to consent to a search against the wishes of the other.
Although Roberts has so far often sided with Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, Roberts was the swing vote in Jones v. Flowers. In Jones, Roberts sided with the liberal wing of the court determining that before a home is seized and sold in a tax sale that due diligence must be demonstrated and proper notification needs to be sent to the owners. Dissenting were Anthony Kennedy along with Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Samuel Alito did not participate while Roberts' ruling was joined by David Souter, Stephen Breyer, John Paul Stevens, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
[edit] Jurisprudence
During Judiciary Committee hearings on his nomination to the circuit court, Roberts testified about his views on jurisprudence.<ref name="multiple">http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/26jan20041230/www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/pdf/108hrg/92548.pdf</ref>
[edit] The Commerce Clause
- "Starting with McCulloch v. Maryland, Chief Justice John Marshall gave a very broad and expansive reading to the powers of the Federal Government and explained that—and I don't remember the exact quote—but if the ends be legitimate, then any means chosen to achieve them are within the power of the Federal Government, and cases interpreting that, throughout the years, have come down. Certainly, by the time Lopez was decided, many of us had learned in law school that it was just sort of a formality to say that interstate commerce was affected and that cases weren't going to be thrown out that way. Lopez certainly breathed new life into the Commerce Clause.
- "I think it remains to be seen, in subsequent decisions, how rigorous a showing, and in many cases, it is just a showing. It's not a question of an abstract fact, does this affect interstate commerce or not, but has this body, the Congress, demonstrated the impact on interstate commerce that drove them to legislate? That's a very important factor. It wasn't present in Lopez at all. I think the members of Congress had heard the same thing I had heard in law school, that this is unimportant—and they hadn't gone through the process of establishing a record in that case."<ref name="multiple">http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/26jan20041230/www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/pdf/108hrg/92548.pdf</ref>
[edit] Federalism
- "Simply because you have a problem that needs addressing, it's not necessarily the case that Federal legislation is the best way to address it…. The constitutional limitation doesn't turn on whether it's a good idea. There is not a 'good idea' clause in the Constitution. It can be a bad idea, but certainly still satisfy the constitutional requirements."<ref name="multiple">http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/26jan20041230/www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/pdf/108hrg/92548.pdf</ref>
Roberts dissented along with Scalia and Thomas in Gonzales v. Oregon, which held that the Controlled Substances Act does not allow the United States Attorney General to prohibit physicians from prescribing drugs for the assisted suicide of the terminally ill as permitted by an Oregon law. However, the point of contention in this case was largely one of statutory interpretation, not federalism.
[edit] Applying precedent
- "The Supreme Court has, throughout its history, on many occasions described the deference that is due to legislative judgments. Justice Holmes described assessing the constitutionality of an act of Congress as the gravest duty that the Supreme Court is called upon to perform.... It'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."<ref name="multiple">http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/26jan20041230/www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/pdf/108hrg/92548.pdf</ref>
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."
[edit] Roe v. Wade
In his Senate testimony, Roberts acknowledged that, on the Circuit Court, he would have an obligation to respect precedents established by the Supreme Court, including the controversial decision invalidating many restrictions on the right to an abortion. He stated: "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land.... There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent, as well as Casey." He did not explicitly say whether he would vote to overturn either. <ref>http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_senate_hearings&docid=f:92548.wais</ref>
- See John Roberts Supreme Court nomination and hearings for speculation about Roberts's current views, concerns about these views raised in the hearings, and the potential impact they might have on his actions in the Supreme Court.
[edit] 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. Because of this short record, 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."<ref>http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_senate_hearings&docid=f:92548.wais</ref> 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's opinions thus far are careful, lawyerly and narrow. They avoid broad pronouncements. They do not try to reorient the law."<ref>http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050801&s=sunstein080105</ref>
His past rulings have included the following issues:
[edit] Fourth and Fifth Amendments
The D.C. Circuit case Hedgepeth v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 386 F.3d 1148, involved a twelve-year-old girl who was, according to the Washington Post, asked if she had any drugs in her possession, searched for drugs, 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 and 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 are 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 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 — detention until the parent is notified and retrieves the child — 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."
[edit] Military tribunals
In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, Roberts was part of a unanimous panel overturning the district court ruling and upholding military tribunals set up by the Bush administration for trying terrorism suspects known as enemy combatants. Circuit Judge A. Raymond Randolph, writing for the court, ruled that Hamdan, a driver for al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden,<ref>http://www.yementimes.com/article.shtml?i=712&p=local&a=5</ref> could be tried by a military court because:
- the military commission had the approval of Congress;
- 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;
- 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.<ref>http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200507/04-5393a.pdf</ref> This decision was overturned on June 29, 2006 by the Supreme Court in a 5-3 decision, with Roberts not participating due to his prior ruling as a circuit judge.
[edit] Environmental regulation
On the U.S. Court of Appeals, Roberts wrote a dissenting opinion regarding Rancho Viejo, LLC v. Norton, 323 F.3d 1062, a case involving the protection of a rare California toad under the Endangered Species Act. When the court denied a rehearing en banc, 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."<ref>See also: "Chief Justice Roberts- Constitutional Interpretations of Article III and the Commerce Clause: Will the "Hapless Toad" and "John Q. Public" Have Any Protection in the Roberts Court?" Paul A. Fortenberry and Daniel Canton Beck. 13 U. Balt. J. Envtl. L. 55 (2005)</ref>
[edit] See also
[edit] Bibliography of articles by John G. Roberts Jr.
The University of Michigan Law Library (External Links, below) has compiled fulltext links to these articles and a number of briefs and arguments.
- Developments in the Law – Zoning, "The Takings Clause," 91 Harv. L. Rev. 1462 (1978). (Section III of a longer article beginning on p. 1427)
- Comment, "Contract Clause – Legislative Alteration of Private Pension Agreements: Allied Structural Steel Co. v. Spannaus," 92 Harv. L. Rev. 86 (1978). (Subsection C of a longer article beginning on p. 57)
- New Rules and Old Pose Stumbling Blocks in High Court Cases, The Legal Times, February 26 1990, co-authored with E. Barrett Prettyman, Jr.
- Article III Limits on Statutory Standing, 42 Duke L. J. 1219 (1992-1993).
- Riding the Coattails of the Solicitor General, The Legal Times, March 29 1993.
- The New Solicitor General and the Power of the Amicus, The Wall Street Journal, May 5 1993.
- The 1992-1993 Supreme Court, Public Interest Law Review 107 (1994).
- Forfeitures: Does Innocence Matter?, New Jersey Law Journal, October 9 1995.
- Thoughts on Presenting an Effective Oral Argument, School Law in Review (1997). Link
- The Bush Panel, 2003 BYU L. Rev. 62 (2003). (Part of a tribute to Rex. E. Lee beginning on p. 1. "The Bush Panel" contains a speech by Roberts.)
- Oral Advocacy and the Re-emergence of a Supreme Court Bar, 30 J. Supr. Ct. Hist. 68 (2005).
- What Makes the D.C. Circuit Different: A Historical View, 92 Va. L. Rev. (forthcoming).
- A Tribute to Chief Justice Rehnquist, 119 Harv. L. Rev. 1 (2005)
[edit] References
[edit] News articles
- "Roberts Listed in Federalist Society '97-98 Directory". Washington Post. July 25 2005. [4]
- "Appellate judge Roberts is Bush high-court pick." MSNBC. July 19 2005. [5]
- Argetsinger, Amy, and Jo Becker. "The nominee as a young pragmatist: under Reagan, Roberts tackled tough issues." Washington Post. July 22 2005. [6]
- Barbash, Fred, et al: "Bush to nominate Judge John G. Roberts Jr." Washington Post. July 19 2005. [7]
- Becker, Jo, and R. Jeffrey Smith. "Record of accomplishment—and some contradictions." Washington Post. July 20 2005. [8]
- Bumuller, Elisabeth, and David Stout: "President chooses conservative judge as nominee to court." New York Times. July 19 2005. [9]
- "Bush: Meeting with Roberts during recount wasn't political." Associated Press. July 23 2005. [10]
- Entous, Adam. "Bush picks conservative Roberts for Supreme Court." Reuters. July 19 2005. [11]
- Kallestad, Brent. "Roberts helped counsel Jeb Bush." Associated Press. July 21 2005. [12]
- Lane, Charles. "Federalist affiliation misstated: Roberts does not belong to group." Washington Post. July 21 2005. [13]
- Lane, Charles. "Short record as judge is under a microscope." Washington Post. July 21 2005. [14]
- Groppe, Maureen, and John Tuohy. "If you ask John where he's from, he says Indiana." Indianapolis Star. July 20 2005. [15]
- McFeatters, Ann. "John G. Roberts Jr. is Bush choice for Supreme Court." Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. July 19 2005. [16]
- Riechmann, Deb. "Federal judge Roberts is Bush's choice." Associated Press. July 20 2005. [17]
- "Roberts: A smart, self-effacing 'Eagle Scout'." Associated Press. July 20 2005. [18]
- "Who Is John G. Roberts Jr.?" ABC News. July 19 2005. [19]
[edit] Government/official biographies
- "President announces Judge John Roberts as Supreme Court nominee." Office of the Press Secretary, Executive Office of the President. [20]
- "Roberts, John G., Jr." Federal Judicial Center. [21]
- "John G. Roberts biography." Office of Legal Policy, U.S. Department of Justice. [22]
- "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. [23]
- John G. Roberts Questionnaire for Appeals Court Confirmation Hearing (p. 297-339) and responses to Questions from Various Senators (p. 443-461) [24] (large PDF file)
[edit] Other
- Coffin, Shannen W. "Meet John Roberts: The President Makes the Best Choice." National Review Online. July 19 2005. [25]
- "Former Hogan & Hartson partner nominated for the U.S. Supreme Court." Hogan & Hartson, LLP. July 20 2005. [26]
- Goldman, Jerry. "John G. Roberts, Jr." Oyez. [27]
- "John G. Roberts, Jr. Fact Sheet" La Lumiere School. [28]
- "John G. Roberts federal campaign contributions." Newsmeat.com. July 19 2005. [29]
- "John G. Roberts Jr." DKosopedia. July 19 2005. [30]
- "Progress for America: Support for the Confirmation of John G. Roberts" [31]
- "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. [32] (PDF file)
[edit] Notes
<references/>
[edit] External links
- Judge Roberts's Published Opinions in a searchable database
- Search and browse the transcripts from Judge Roberts's confirmation hearing
- John Roberts at the Notable Names Database
- Chief Justice John Roberts at About.com
- Transcript of Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the nomination of John Roberts to the D.C. circuit (Roberts Q&A on pages 17-79) plain text available here
- Bush Picks Roberts to Be Chief Justice, Replacing Rehnquist
- FindLaw Lawyer Profile
- List of Circuit Judge Roberts's opinions for the DC Circuit
- University of Michigan Law Library fulltext links
- Federalist Society
- 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
- Experts Analyze Supreme Court Nominee John Roberts's Legal Record
- Profile of the Nominee - The Washington Post
- A Senate Hearing Primer - The New York Times
- Video and Transcripts From the Roberts Confirmation Hearings - The New York Times
- SCOTUSblog
- Supreme Court Nomination Blog
- Senate Vote on the Roberts nomination
- List of Chief Justices, including John Roberts, Jr.
- On first day, Roberts sets no-nonsense tone - The Boston Globe
| Preceded by: James L. Buckley | Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 2003-2005 | Succeeded by: vacant |
| Preceded by: William H. Rehnquist | Chief Justice of the United States September 29, 2005 – present | Incumbent |
| Preceded by: Dennis Hastert | United States order of precedence as of 2006 | Succeeded by: Gerald Ford |
| Judicial opinions of John Roberts | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (June 2, 2003 - September 29, 2005) | ||||
| (organized by calendar year) | ||||
|
| ||||
| Supreme Court of the United States (September 29, 2005 - present) | ||||
| ||||
| Chief Justices of the United States of America
<td style="vertical-align: middle; width: 1px" rowspan="2"> Image:Seal of the United States Supreme Court.png </td> |
|---|
| Jay • Rutledge • Ellsworth • Marshall • Taney • Chase • Waite • Fuller • White Taft • Hughes • Stone • Vinson • Warren • Burger • Rehnquist • Roberts |
| The Roberts Court | Image:Seal of the United States Supreme Court.png | |
|---|---|---|
| John Glover Roberts, Jr. (2005 to present) | ||
| 2005–2006: | J.P. Stevens | S.D. O'Connor | A. Scalia | A. Kennedy | D. Souter | C. Thomas | R.B. Ginsburg | S. Breyer | |
| 2006–present: | J.P. Stevens | A. Scalia | A. Kennedy | D. Souter | C. Thomas | R.B. Ginsburg | S. Breyer | S. Alito | |
</center>
| Persondata | |
|---|---|
| NAME | Roberts, John Glover, Jr. |
| ALTERNATIVE NAMES | |
| SHORT DESCRIPTION | U.S. Supreme Court justice |
| DATE OF BIRTH | January 27, 1955 |
| PLACE OF BIRTH | Buffalo, New York, United States |
| DATE OF DEATH | living |
| PLACE OF DEATH | |
es:John Roberts fr:John G. Roberts Jr. it:John G. Roberts he:ג'ון רוברטס nl:John Roberts ja:ジョン・ロバーツ no:John Roberts nn:John Roberts pl:John Glover Roberts pt:John Roberts ro:John G. Roberts, Jr. simple:John Roberts sk:John Roberts fi:John Roberts sv:John Roberts zh:約翰·格洛佛·羅伯茨
Categories: Chief Justices of the United States | Judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit | Georgetown University faculty | American federal lawyers | American legal academics | Washington, D.C. lawyers | Harvard University alumni | Harvard Law School alumni | Roman Catholic jurists | American Roman Catholics | People from Indiana | People from Buffalo, New York | 1955 births | Living people
