Judging Chief Justice Roberts' record

Author: Jennifer Leigh Williams

Roberts is a judge for the twenty-first century. As Chief Justice, he writes engagingly; it is common for him to pepper his opinions with sports imagery and witty humor. For example, he describes his position as that of an umpire, or one whose job is to uphold the rules, not to get the glory of the home runs. He has been described by The New York Times as "His Hipness" for his ability to bring fun to the bench and make the court understandable. He is a succinct writer, brilliantly capable at grounding his judicial decisions in existing law through careful analysis without referring to other sources. Roberts rules with a self-proclaimed minimalist flavor, which means that he prefers to keep law simple instead of writing complicated opinions on a case-by-case basis.

However, this judicial style sometimes ends up at odds with morality and supports conservative values. Although one year on the court may not reveal Roberts' long-term tendencies, 95 percent of the Chief Justice's opinions have sided with Justice Antonin Scalia, the court's radical conservative.

Take, for example, Roberts' decision to support President Bush's military tribunals in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Roberts ruled on this case, Hamden v. Rumsfeld, while he served as a judge in the federal appellate court in 2005.

He decided to grant the executive branch of government a blank check to hold military commissions outside of the U.S. court system even though doing so would violate the Geneva Convention which upholds basic human rights.

The decision stated that the Geneva Convention is a treaty between nations, not a guarantee of individual rights, and that those suspected of terror, like al Qaeda members, were not covered by the conventions.

Roberts' Appellate Court decision was overturned when it was later tried by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled that Roberts' decision erred in not applying the fundamental principle of the Geneva Convention and moreover violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice by not giving detainees at Guantanamo the basic human right fair trial in a "regularly constituted court." Roberts did not participate as the rest of the Supreme Court overruled his earlier opinion. Hamdan v. Rumsfeld was described on NPR by former Solicitor General Walter Dellinger III to be "the most important decision on presidential power and rule of law. Ever."

The Supreme Court upheld their role in checking abuses of power in this landmark case despite Roberts, not in conjunction with him.

This year, the cases looming before the Supreme Court, which went back into session this month, will continue to shed light on Roberts' judicial style and his ability to uphold justice. In particular, one case could ban certain abortions even when the life of the mother is threatened, a ban that President Bush strongly supports. Another case challenges racial quotas supporting diversity and combating segregation in public schools. In deciding on these cases, Roberts will be forced to take a stand against the stated opinions of the executive branch, or reveal a lean towards partisan beliefs instead of principle.