I presume this is the report on the Iran-Contra from the senate. I ran across this by accident and had to bring it forth for us to review. Along with other qualifiers that Mr. Roberts have to his laundry list, it befuddles me as to what his qualifications are REALLY!
Since Senator Kerry was very involved in the investigation of this affair, might we want to ask Mr. Kerry as to what this truly is about with Mr. Roberts???!!!
See below:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Chapter 13
Private Fundraising: The Guilty Pleas of Channell and Miller
As funding prospects for the contras grew increasingly dim in the spring of 1984, one source of funds for the contras was wealthy American citizens sympathetic to President Reagan’s contra policy and willing to donate large sums to send weapons and other military supplies to the contras. Lt. Col. Oliver L. North of the National Security Council staff worked principally with two private fundraisers — Carl R. “Spitz” Channell and Richard R. Miller — to solicit donations through a tax-exempt foundation, the National Endowment for the Preservation of Liberty (NEPL).
NEPL in 1985 and 1986 received $6,323,020 for the contras. Because of overhead costs, commissions and salaries taken by the fundraisers, it disbursed to the contras at North’s direction only $3,306,882.
In the spring of 1987 Channell and Miller each pleaded guilty to a felony: conspiracy to defraud the United States. Together they provided extensive information about their fundraising activities. The pleas were based on Channell and Miller’s illegal use of a tax-exempt organization to raise funds for non-charitable items, including weapons and other lethal supplies for the contras.1
1 The Channell and Miller guilty pleas were obtained principally through the work of Associate Counsel Michael R. Bromwich and David M. Zornow.
On April 29, 1987, Channell pleaded guilty to a felony charge of conspiracy to defraud the United States. At the time of his plea, Channell entered into an agreement with Independent Counsel requiring him to cooperate with the investigation and to provide truthful testimony in future court proceedings.
On May 6, 1987, Miller entered a plea of guilty to the felony charge of conspiring to defraud the United States. At the time of his plea, Miller agreed to cooperate with Independent Counsel’s investigation and to provide truthful testimony in subsequent court proceedings.
Supplementing the information provided by Channell and Miller, a number of their subordinates and associates entered into cooperation agreements with Independent Counsel in exchange for immunity from prosecution. They included: Channell employees Daniel L. Conrad, F. Clifton Smith, Krishna S. Littledale and Jane McLaughlin; Miller associate Francis Gomez; and Channell-Miller consultant David Fischer.
Both Channell and Miller in the allocutions preceding their guilty pleas identified North as an unindicted co-conspirator. Both men testified at the trial of North, who was acquitted of the charge of conspiracy to commit tax fraud and making false statements to Congress regarding his fundraising activities.2
2 The private fundraising in which North engaged with Channell and Miller also formed part of the central diversion-conspiracy charge against North, which was dismissed due to classified-information problems before the case came to trial.
National Endowment for the Preservation of Liberty (NEPL)
Channell formed NEPL in 1984. He obtained Internal Revenue Service approval to operate it as a tax-exempt organization based on his representations that its activities were not for profit and focused on the study, analysis and evaluation of the American socioeconomic and political systems. NEPL was exempted from taxes under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, which covers groups organized exclusively for “religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary or educational” purposes. Channell was NEPL’s president and Daniel L. Conrad its executive director.
Channell had years of experience in raising funds for conservative political causes. As a result, he was asked by White House officials early in 1985 to help organize a “Nicaraguan Refugee Fund Dinner” to raise money for the contra cause. Channell became disenchanted with the way the dinner-planning had been conducted, and in April 1985 he approached White House political director Edward Rollins to offer his assistance in promoting President Reagan’s contra policies.
He was referred to White House political aide John Roberts, who in turn directed him to Miller, a private public relations consultant who ran a firm known as International Business Communications (IBC).3 According to Channell, Roberts told him that Miller and his partner Frank Gomez “are the White House — outside the White House.” 4
3 In 1984, Miller and his partner Gomez began providing public relations advice to contra leader Adolfo Calero. Calero’s Nicaraguan Development Council between September 1984 and May 1985 paid $55,000 in retainer fees to IBC. (Miller, FBI 302, 7/8/87, p. 4.)
4 Channell, Select Committees Deposition, 9/1/87, p. 53.
By the late spring of 1985, Channell and Miller had begun raising money for direct aid to the contras through NEPL.5 Channell had developed a fundraising technique in which a comparatively small number of wealthy potential contributors were invited to briefings with Administration officials in Washington and then solicited for donations.
5 Shortly before Miller and Channell joined forces, Miller and North in March 1985 began pursuing a promised contra donation from a man named Mousalreza Ebrahim Zadeh, also known as Al-Masoudi, who fraudulently represented himself as a member of the Saudi royal family. Miller and North referred to him as “the prince.”
In various efforts to assist Zadeh throughout 1985 and to obtain from him a promised $14 million donation to the contras, Miller estimated that he disbursed more than $270,000 in IBC funds, which had been earmarked for the contras and raised by Channell’s NEPL organization. (Miller Grand Jury, 6/17/87, p. 104.) According to Miller, North was aware of these expenditures and said that the needs of the contras were so great that money spent on Zadeh from funds intended for the contras were justified.
By the fall of 1985, the FBI had begun investigating Zadeh for bank fraud. The FBI informed Miller that Zadeh was not a Saudi prince but an Iranian national and con-man. Despite this warning, Miller remained in contact with Zadeh to obtain information about American hostages in the Middle East and continued to pay some of his expenses. In 1986 Zadeh pleaded guilty to bank fraud charges. (Miller, FBI 302, 7/8/87.)
The North Briefings
The success of the Channell-Miller operation was dependent on donors recognizing its close ties to the White House. Miller introduced Channell to North, who in June 1985 began giving personal and group briefings for NEPL contributors on the war in Nicaragua and the needs of the contras. North’s dramatic presentation style prompted many wealthy donors to give tens of thousands of dollars immediately following these briefings.
North testified that he received permission from his immediate superior Donald Fortier and from National Security Adviser Robert C. McFarlane in 1985 to engage in fundraising with Channell and Miller.6 North said he was told, however, that he could not solicit donations directly for the contras under the Boland prohibition. As a result, North said, he would provide information about contras needs and then leave it to Channell and others to follow with a solicitation. North’s participation in these fundraising events gave a clear White House endorsement to the Channell-Miller operation, and although North may not have specifically asked for money, he was a party to a joint effort to solicit it. He had no other purpose in briefing wealthy donors.
6 North, North trial testimony, 4/10/89, p. 7217.
Fortier died in August 1986. McFarlane denied authorizing fund solicitation, but he pleaded guilty in March 1988 to misleading Congress based in part on false representations he made about NSC staff fundraising activities in letters in 1985 to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere Affairs. See McFarlane chapter.
Following the first NEPL briefing at the White House in June 1985, Channell presented contra leader Adolfo Calero with a $50,000 check. But shortly after this direct payment, Channell expressed concerns to North that the donations might be unwisely used if they were given directly to contra leaders.7 North told Channell to direct funds to Miller at IBC. Miller, in turn, transferred the bulk of these funds to a Cayman Islands bank account, I.C. Inc., that he had established in coordination with North.8 At North’s direction, Miller transferred $1.7 million to the Enterprise’s Swiss accounts. (See “Flow of Funds from Contributors through NEPL to Lake” chart, next page.)
7 In June 1985, North and Secord informed contra leaders that they would no longer receive money directly for weapons purchases, but that funding would go to the Enterprise, which would purchase weapons for them.
8 The name of I.C., Inc., was later changed to Intel Co-operation, Inc.
Insert offset folio 468C
Channell arranged for wealthy contributors to attend briefings by North, co-hosted by the White House Office of Public Liaison, at the White House or the Old Executive Office Building (OEOB) next door. On some occasions — particularly with the most generous donors — North would discuss specific military needs of the contras, and their specific costs. For example, on August 23, 1985, North and Channell met with contributor Ellen Garwood in North’s OEOB office and discussed the need for a $75,000 Maule aircraft; Garwood subsequently gave Channell a $75,000 check to buy a Maule.
Group briefings were held at the White House on June 27, 1985; November 21, 1985; January 30, 1986; March 27, 1986; and April 16, 1986. At the January 30, 1986, briefing, the speakers included North, President Reagan, White House Chief of Staff Donald T. Regan, White House Director of Communications Patrick Buchanan, and Assistant Secretary of State Elliott Abrams.
Following White House briefings, Channell arranged for lodging for potential contributors at the Hay-Adams Hotel, across Lafayette Park from the White House. It was at the Hay-Adams that Channell would often make his direct pitch for funding from the donors. Potential donors were sometimes shown lists that North prepared describing contra weapons needs and their prices, including SAM-7 missiles, Blowpipe missiles, C-4 plastic explosives and other equipment.
In some cases, the briefings took place outside of Washington. In September 1985, Channell flew North by private plane to Dallas to meet with Bunker Hunt.9 Channell, NEPL’s executive director Daniel Conrad, and North brought with them a $5 million to $6 million projected budget for contra supplies. According to Channell, North described the needs of the contras but told Hunt he couldn’t ask for money himself. He then turned the meeting over to Channell.
9 Channell, North Trial Testimony, 3/8/89, pp. 3414-15.
As an added incentive for future donations, contributors received thank-you letters on White House stationery from North and other Administration officials. Major contributors received personal thanks in letters from President Reagan. The most generous were invited to pose for photos with Reagan in the Oval Office.
To assist in gaining access to the President, Channell and Miller retained David Fischer, a former special assistant to President Reagan, and Fischer’s associate, Martin L. Artiano. Both men had worked in Reagan’s unsuccessful 1976 presidential bid and his successful 1980 campaign. Fischer contracted with Miller and IBC for a $20,000-a-month retainer for him and Artiano to be paid by Channell with NEPL funds.10 Fischer received immunity from prosecution in exchange for his cooperation.
10 Fischer denied allegations that he received $50,000 from NEPL for each meeting he set up with President Reagan. (Fischer, FBI 302, 5/5/87, p. 4; Grand Jury 12/2/87, p. 69.) Independent Counsel found no evidence supporting these allegations.
Beginning in January 1986, Channell through Fischer was able to set up private meetings with the President for the top contributors, who included Barbara Newington, Fred Sacher, Mr. and Mrs. David Warm, Ellen Garwood, Hunt, May Dougherty King and Robert Driscoll.11 Fischer said he set up photo opportunities for donors with the President through the Office of White House Chief of Staff Regan.12
11 Newington contributed $1,148,471; Sacher $400,000; the Warms $355,232; Garwood $2,546,598; Hunt $475,000; King $921,500; and Driscoll $106,000. These were the top donors.
12 Fischer, FBI 302, 3/18/87, p. 3.
Fischer said that he described to Regan these individuals as supporters of the President and the Republican party. Fischer said that the President was told, preceding the photo sessions, general information about the people, including the fact that they supported his contra policy. (Fischer, Grand Jury, 12/2/87, pp. 49-53.)
NEPL Income
In 1985 and 1986, NEPL received $10,385,929 in total contributions for a variety of causes. The major contra-related contributions from June 1985 to November 1986 totaled $6,323,020. Of this, only $3,306,882 went to contra support, disbursed at North’s direction as follows: $1,738,000 to the Swiss Enterprise account Lake Resources; $1,080,000 in transfers to Calero; and $488,882 to other contra-related activities.
The NEPL donations were transferred to Miller’s International Business Communications account and then to foreign accounts, including the Cayman Islands bank account controlled by Miller, I.C. Inc. Between September 1985 and April 1986, North directed Miller to transfer more than $1.7 million raised by NEPL to the Enterprise’s Lake Resources account in Switzerland, including:
—————————————————————————
…..9/20/85: …..$130,000 …..from the I.C. Inc. account
…..9/26/85: …..$100,000 …..from the I.C. Inc. account
…..11/1/85: …..$150,000 …..from the I.C. Inc. account
…..11/18/85: …..$48,000 …..from the I.C. Inc. account
…..12/16/85: …..$300,000 …..from the IBC account
…..1/21/86: …..$360,000 …..from the I.C. Inc. account
…..4/11/86: …..$650,000 …..from the I.C. Inc. accountrn,n,s,n
…..Total: …..$1,738,000
——————————————————————–
North also directed Miller to transfer NEPL funds to other projects. These disbursements included $200,000 for a purported Arab “prince” who promised to make a sizable donation to the contras; 13 and $75,000 to the Institute for Terrorism & Subnational Conflict, to pay the salary of Robert W. Owen, North’s personal courier to the contras. About $450,000 went to a Cayman Islands entity, World Affairs Counselors Inc., through which Miller and Gomez paid themselves for their fundraising services.
13 Miller, FBI 302, 6/11/87, p. 2. See n. 5.
On two occasions, Roy Godson of the Heritage Foundation helped solicit funds from private donors.14 In the fall of 1985, Godson, at North’s direction, informed Miller that an anonymous donor wanted to make a large contribution to the Catholic church in Nicaragua. Based on a plan agreed to by Godson and Miller, the donor contributed $100,000 to the Heritage Foundation, which then forwarded the money to a Miller-Gomez entity known as the Institute for North-South Issues (INSI). Miller and Gomez took a $20,000 commission and forwarded $80,000 to their I.C. Inc. account in the Cayman Islands.
14 Miller, FBI 302, 7/8/87, pp. 10-11.
In November 1985, North spoke with another private donor about the needs of the contras and the Nicaraguan Catholic church.15 North informed Miller that Godson had located the donor, who would be making a $60,000 contribution.16 The money was deposited directly into the INSI account and then transferred to the Lake Resources Account in Switzerland. Miller and Gomez took no commission on this donation.
15 Richard MacAleer, FBI 302, 9/30/87, p. 2.
16 Miller, FBI 302, 7/8/87, p. 10.
After business expenses, Channell and Miller earned substantial sums for their work. Channell was paid $345,000 during the two-year period; his associate Conrad was paid $270,000. Including “commissions” totaling $442,000, Richard Miller and Frank Gomez and their firm, IBC, received approximately $1.7 million. Public relations contractors David Fischer and Martin Artiano received $662,000.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Here is more on Roberts. This just adds to his no canidate slide.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The John Roberts Dossier
By Katharine Mieszkowski
Salon.com
Wednesday 20 July 2005
Everything you need to know about Bush’s nominee, before the battle begins.
Who is he?
John G. Roberts, 50, now serves as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, where he’s been since 2003. It took him three nominations and more than a decade to get there. He was originally nominated for the court in 1992 by the first President Bush, and again by George W. Bush in 2001; both nominations died in the Senate. Roberts was renominated in January 2003 by President Bush and joined the court in May of that year.
His two-year stint on the D.C. court offers a short record of decisions to scrutinize. But in his career as a litigator, Roberts argued 39 cases before the Supreme Court, both as a lawyer in private practice and as one working for the government under Republican administrations. He won 25 of them.
Roberts was a member of “Lawyers for Bush-Cheney” and contributed $1,000 to the first Bush-Cheney election campaign in 2000. His professional ties to the Bush family go back a generation; he served under Kenneth Starr as the principal deputy solicitor general in the first Bush administration. He also campaigned for that administration’s election, as a member of the executive committee of the DC Lawyers for Bush-Quayle ’88. Before that, he was the deputy White House counsel for four years in the Reagan administration.
When not serving in Republican administrations — or contributing money to them — he’s been in practice as a corporate lawyer at Hogan & Hartson, the largest law firm based in D.C., where he was paid more than $1 million in 2003, the last year he worked there. His clients ranged from the states of Hawaii and Alaska to the National Collegiate Athletic Association and the Pulte Corp. He successfully represented Toyota Motor Manufacturing in a case before the Supreme Court, where he argued that a worker with carpal tunnel syndrome was not protected under the Americans With Disabilities Act, even though she was fired for an injury acquired on the job. He also served as a lobbyist on behalf of the Western Peanut Growers Association and the Panhandle Peanut Growers Association. A partner at Hogan & Hartson for 10 years, his net worth is more than $3.7 million, according to financial disclosure statements.
Roberts is also a member of the influential Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies,a group of conservatives and libertarians, which holds that the legal professional is currently dominated by “a form of orthodox liberal ideology.”
If confirmed to the Supreme Court, Roberts will be the 105th white male justice to serve.
Where does he come from?
Born in Buffalo, N.Y., in 1955, Roberts grew up in Indiana. He has an Ivy League résumé and the top-tier clerkships to go with it. He attended Harvard College, from which he graduated in three years, and then Harvard Law School, where he was on the Law Review, graduating in 1979. After school, he clerked for Henry Friendly at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, as well as Chief Justice William Rehnquist on the Supreme Court, before being appointed the special assistant to the attorney general in the Department of Justice.
A Catholic, he’s married to a lawyer, Jane Marie Sullivan, with whom he has two children, Jack and Josephine.
Where does he stand on abortion?
Roberts has been involved in two key decisions while arguing on behalf of Republican administrations, both of which pro-choice groups consider attacks on women’s reproductive rights.
In Rust v. Sullivan, the then-deputy solicitor general coauthored a brief in support of regulations prohibiting U.S. family planning programs, which get federal aid, from giving any abortion-related counseling. In that brief, he wrote: “We continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled … The Court’s conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion … finds no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution.” The court upheld those regulations. In another case, involving the Operation Rescue, he coauthored the government’s amicus brief supporting the group’s right to target clinics, under the First Amendment, arguing that Operation Rescue was not engaged in a conspiracy to deny women equal protection.
But in his confirmation hearing in 2003 to the appeals court, when asked about abortion, Roberts said that the Supreme Court was clear on the matter, and he could uphold it: “Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land,” he said. “There’s nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent.” Whether as a member of the court he would try to change that law remains to be seen.
What do “enemy combatants” and French fries have in common? (Roberts’ track record on civil liberties.)
Last Friday, the court on which Roberts now serves decided a case that supports the Bush administration’s plans to use secretive military tribunals in the war on terror, which have provoked an international outcry from civil libertarians and human rights advocates. The three-judge panel, including Roberts, ruled unanimously that tribunals set up to try terrorism suspects for war crimes, in the case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, were authorized under federal law. And it found that any rights accorded by the Geneva Convention to prisoners of war did not apply to suspected al-Qaida members or so-called enemy combatants. The two lawyers representing Hamdan in the case called the decision “contrary to 200 years of constitutional law.” It was the first major opinion in which Roberts concurred — and, ironically, could be tested in the Supreme Court during its next term.
Another, much-noted accomplishment also has to do with civil liberties. In 2004, Roberts upheld the arrest of a 12-year-old girl who was handcuffed by transit police on the Washington Metro system for eating a single French fry. “No one is very happy about the events that led to this litigation,” he wrote. Yet, he determined that the cops didn’t violate the girl’s rights under the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment guarantee against unreasonable searches.
What about the environment?
Robert’s doesn’t seem to be a big fan of the Endangered Species Act, at least considering his attitude toward the arroyo toad — about which he wrote “for reasons of its own lives its entire life in California,” rather snippily in a dissent in the case of Rancho Viejo v. Norton. In 2003, Roberts wanted the court to reconsider a panel’s decision that upheld a Fish and Wildlife Service regulation protecting the toads under the act. The court declined to hear the case, but in his dissent Roberts maintained there could be no interstate commerce rationale for protecting the toad.
When Roberts was the government’s lead counsel before the Supreme Court in Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, he successfully argued that members of the environmental group did not have a right to file claims against 4,500 acres of public land being opened to mining. The court agreed, making it harder for plaintiffs to challenge government actions that hurt the environment.
Where does he stand on gay rights?
Gay rights advocates like the Human Rights Campaign say that Roberts has no paper trail on the issue as a judge. But they fear that his conservative Republican record, including his criticism of the right to privacy authorized by Roe, bodes badly for them.
What about prayer in school?
Roberts has argued on behalf of his clients for the expansion of religion in public schools. In a coauthored brief to the Supreme Court in Lee v. Weisman, he argued that religious ceremonies should be allowed to be a part of graduation ceremonies. The Supreme Court rejected that position. But Roberts successfully argued to the court that religious groups should not be banned from meeting on school grounds in the case of Mergens v. Westside Community School District.
——————————————————————————–
Go to Original
Roberts Is Well Liked, but His Judicial Record Isn’t Clear
By Stephen Henderson
Knight Ridder Newspapers
Tuesday 19 July 2005
Washington – If you’re looking for clear ideological markers in the work of John G. Roberts Jr., the kinds of screeds or invectives that might define a judge more as a political actor than a measured jurist, you’ll look a long time in vain.
That’s because Roberts, President Bush’s nominee to become the 109th justice of the Supreme Court, has made an art of avoiding controversy in a town that thrives on it.
What does Roberts think about affirmative action or gay rights? About separation of church and state or the death penalty? Legal insiders in Washington, where Roberts has spent nearly 30 years as a lawyer, government official and judge on a prestigious appeals court, respond unanimously: Who knows?
Even on abortion, perhaps the most divisive issue the Supreme Court confronts, Roberts’ record is mixed.
As a young lawyer in the George H.W. Bush administration, Roberts had a hand in taking a position that Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling that legalized abortion, was wrongly decided and should be overturned.
But during 2003 confirmation hearings for his appointment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Roberts was equally unequivocal on the opposite side. He said Roe was settled law.
“He’s a very moderate personality, but no one really knows whether his politics and his jurisprudence are also moderate, because he hasn’t let that be known,” said Thomas Goldstein, a Washington lawyer who argues before the Supreme Court and whose firm, Goldstein & Howe, operates an Internet site that tracks high court activity. “He’s definitely not an open ideologue, but what does he believe? I don’t know.”
H. Christopher Bartolomucci, a partner at Hogan & Hartson, LLP, the Washington law firm where Roberts worked, said the nominee took cases that advocated positions across the political spectrum and had no problem representing all sorts of clients. Roberts once argued on behalf of welfare recipients who were being cut off, saying they were entitled to individual hearings before their benefits were discontinued.
On the D.C. appeals court, which is split between Democratic and Republican appointees, Roberts has written about 40 opinions and has had only two or three other judges dissent from his rulings, Bartolomucci said.
“I think that says something, if he’s got Carter and Clinton appointees going along with what he says,” Bartolomucci said.
Roberts’ enigmatic record may prove a boon in the Senate Judiciary Committee, improving his chances for quick confirmation.
But some interests are already saying his lack of clear positions is troubling, because no one really knows what the country might expect from a Justice John Roberts.
“At first blush, John Roberts may not appear to be an ultra-right judicial activist,” said Wade Henderson, the executive director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the nation’s largest coalition of civil rights groups. “While in reality John Roberts may be a hard-nosed extremist with a soft conservative facade. In short, the president may have nominated a stealth candidate, a Justice (Antonin) Scalia or (Clarence) Thomas in (Sandra Day) O’Connor’s robes.”
In some ways, Roberts has all the credentials that conservatives were seeking in a high court nominee. He clerked for Chief Justice William Rehnquist, worked in the Reagan White House and is a member of the Federalist Society, a prominent group of conservative lawyers.
That background is reflected in opinions Roberts has written on the D.C. circuit that suggest a limited role for the federal government in economic and environmental regulation. He’s questioned the reach of Congress to enforce some parts of the Endangered Species Act and the ability of federal courts to interfere in criminal proceedings to uphold civil liberties.
In an opinion that Roberts’ opponents often cite, he upheld the arrest and detention of a 12-year-old girl for eating french fries in a Washington subway station. Roberts acknowledged that no one was happy about the circumstances of the arrest, but denied the girl’s claims that her arrest violated the Constitution.
But Roberts also has taken positions that are inconsistent with some conservative views, suggesting that he has a more open-minded view of the Constitution than some of his critics say.
He’s sided with criminal defendants in some cases, opposing other Republican appointees. And he’s taken other inconsistent views, depending heavily on the facts in cases.
That highlights a part of Roberts’ approach that separates him somewhat from Justices Scalia and Thomas: Though he has a firm view of the Constitution and its limitations on government, he’s intensely interested and contemplative about the facts in each case.
Bartolomucci said a Justice Roberts probably would combine attributes of several current justices.
“I think he’ll be a little bit like Rehnquist, a very careful comber of precedent and text, and I think John may have some of O’Connor’s ability to look at facts and realities, and be sensitive to the nuances in a case,” Bartolomucci said.
“He will definitely bring the pure intellectual power of a Scalia to the court, and that’s a good thing.”
That’s one attribute that no one disputes for Roberts. A Harvard law graduate who was managing editor of the school’s law review, he’s regarded by lawyers across the spectrum as one of the great legal minds of his generation. He’s argued 39 cases before the Supreme Court – a staggering number – and he attracted the support of dozens of other legal scholars when he was nominated to the appeals court.
Henderson of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights said he respected Roberts’ intellect and record of accomplishment but that he remained concerned about what kind of justice he’d be.
“I don’t think it’s possible to endorse him, given the record we’ve seen,” Henderson said. “But the question is whether we might actively oppose him. We’ll have to wait and see.”
He said the president missed an opportunity by picking Roberts.
“We’re saddened that President Bush has chosen the politics of conflict and division over bipartisan consensus,” he said. “Let’s be clear: John Roberts is no mainstream judge.”
