Column: Precedent, not politics

By Chuck Prochaska

In 1993, President Bill Clinton nominated Appeals Court Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court. At that time, a conservative might have been tempted to stall her nomination process and block her entry to the Court for several reasons.

Ginsburg had worked as an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union to legalize prostitution, defend against separate prisons for men and women and even discussed a constitutional right to polygamy.

Given this leftist background, Republican Senators were rightfully worried about the court under the guidance of Judge Ginsburg and pressed her for answers in her Judiciary Committee hearings. But predictably, liberals cried foul. Setting the tone for the hearings, Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., established what conservatives now call “The Ginsburg Precedent.” He advised Ginsburg saying, “You have a right to choose what you will answer and not answer – but in my view, you should not answer a question of what your view will be on an issue that clearly is going to come before the court,” according to a video interview found on judgeroberts.com. So, she didn’t.

Given her extreme liberal tendencies, conservatives and moderates could not help but appreciate her resume. She received a B.A. from Cornell, law education at Harvard, J.D. from Columbia and 12 years on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. And for that she was appointed to the Court.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, explained this bipartisan action best. In a video interview found on judgeroberts.com, the Senator said, “You stand up for good people even if you don’t fully agree with them. And we have a President who happens to differ with me, but he was elected! Frankly, who am I to stand here and say this President shouldn’t have who he wants?”

Get The Daily Illini in your inbox!

  • Catch the latest on University of Illinois news, sports, and more. Delivered every weekday.
  • Stay up to date on all things Illini sports. Delivered every Monday.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Thank you for subscribing!

With the passing of Chief Justice William Rehnquist, President Bush has nominated Judge John Roberts to fill the vacancy. Judge Roberts, like Ginsburg, also has an impressive education. He graduated from Harvard Law Magna Cum Laude in 1979 and clerked for Justice Rehnquist beginning in 1981. Yet, his respectable conservative background has caused liberals to dispatch ground troops in a massive assault on his character and credibility.

Roberts has been branded by special interest groups and elected officials alike. He’s been called a supporter of violent fringe groups (NARAL Pro-Choice America) and Sen. Ted Kennedy denounced him for possessing “a cramped and contorted view of our Constitution that will turn back the clock,” according to The Washington Post. Some attack ads have been pulled due to their blatant distortions, and nobody wants to listen to a drunk that drowned a girl and lied about it. But the fact remains, Dems aren’t about to afford the same courtesies to Roberts that they demanded for Ginsburg.

Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-Calif., obviously not a student of history, is demanding that Roberts cough up his personal views on political issues during his hearings. “What is not a good thing to do is stonewall the (Judiciary) Committee,” Feinstein said in a Los Angeles Times interview. “The American people are entitled to know what this man’s views are.”

In addition to his Biden-given right to stonewall the Judiciary Committee, the fact that Roberts was originally nominated to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor should have no bearing on his confirmation hearings. Rehnquist was a very conservative member of the court, and Roberts has a very conservative history. Democrats should be thankful they are trading Rehnquist, a Roe v. Wade dissenter for Roberts, a potential Roe v. Wade dissenter, and not O’Connor, a founder of the Roe v. Wade precedent.

He shouldn’t be examined more carefully or have his hearings postponed. His preliminary meetings with senators in Washington reveal that he is well liked and a man of character with no skeletons in his closet.

Judge John Roberts will be, and should be, confirmed easily as the next Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, and he will serve his country well. Then,

O’Connor must soon be replaced, laying the foundation for a solid conservative court.

Chuck Prochaska is a junior in LAS. His column appears every Thursday. He can be reached at [email protected].