Last week, about 75 young conservatives gathered at The Brickskeller for the second meeting of “Conservatism on Tap” featuring William L. Saunders, Jr. of the Family Research Council.
The talk, presented by Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI) Alumni of D.C., was about “The Roberts’ Court” and how it will be different from the Warren Court and the Roe vs. Wade decision.
“Before the Supreme Court decided Roe, the issue was being decided in [state] legislatures. Their ruling constitutionalized the issue, which is paradigmatic of judicial activism,” Saunders said.
According to Saunders, judicial activism, courts usurping the role of legislators, is the biggest problem facing us today because the people have no power to hold judges accountable. People elect legislators, but “we didn’t elect the Supreme Court or appoint nine guardians of the country,” he continued.
Just look at the Ten Commandments cases, explained Saunders. The Texas and Kentucky decisions “turned on Breyer’s determination of controversy or unease.”
Because of judicial activism, President Bush has attempted to fill judicial vacancies with people who believe law should not be decided based on their personal views.
Democratic leadership fought hard to prevent appointments from getting a vote, threatened to filibuster, and then a “terrible thing” happened with the formation of the “Gang of 14,” said Saunders, expressing the view that Republicans should have busted the filibuster instead of compromising.
But then Justice O’Connor announced her retirement and Chief Justice Rehnquist died and the vacancies were filled, first by John Roberts and later by Samuel Alito.
“Roberts said he would look at the law, the facts and the precedent in each case. They wanted him to say what his substantive views were and how he would rule. But if you are a Republican or a Democrat, in my opinion, you don’t want someone who will do that—who is making decisions based on their substantive views,” said Saunders.
Alito was given a fantastic recommendation by the ABA saying unanimously that he is absolutely qualified for the job.
Even before Alito was on the bench, “Roberts was impressive,” said Saunders. He asked narrow questions that probed the case specifically and he controlled the floor, all of which shows his deftness as a judge.
After explaining the circumstances leading to the Roberts’ Court, Saunders began discussing cases, abortion law and the future of the court.
The future of the court, dealing with abortion law is uncertain. Abortion restrictions can be overturned if one part is ruled unconstitutional, explained Saunders. That is unique to abortion litigation.
The other reason it is uncertain is because of Justice Kennedy, who took the middle ground in cases when O’Connor was still on the court. Cases like Planned Parenthood vs. Casey. But echoing other commentators, Saunders stated that Kennedy is now the fifth vote in any case and he knows it. Kennedy has begun writing his own opinions, voting with the majority, but providing his own rationale,said Saunders, “So we have no idea what he will do.”
A fifth vote, due to someone leaving the court, would give us the finest Supreme Court in many years, Saunders said optimistically. But even without it, the opinions contributed by Roberts and Alito “will continue to be more influential than the majority opinions.”
For more information regarding upcoming ISI Alumni events including next month’s “Conservatism on Tap” please contact Cindy Searcy at isialumni@gmail.com.
Julia A. Seymour is staff writer for Accuracy in Academia
