Topic: What Surprised you About Your Last Two Years of Judging
Senator: DeWine
Date: SEPTEMBER 14, 2005
Contents
DEWINE: Let me ask you a more personal question.
Last time you appeared before our committee, you were a lawyer in private practice. Since that time, you spend approximately two years on the Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia, a new experience, even for an experienced practitioner like you. What surprised you about the last two years of judging, if anything?
ROBERTS: Well, I think I had the biggest surprise on the first day that I heard cases. Obviously, it's opening day and the first day of my career, so I prepared as well as I could and the arguments were great and I went into the conference room and I had my notes and all the books. It's just the judges, you know; just the three judges. We bring the record in; we're surrounded by the U.S. reports, by our Court of Appeals reports, but the United States code that you folks have written. And I was ready and I'm sitting there and I remember the chief judge, who by tradition sits on a new judge's first day. He was there and another judge and I waited a while and I looked and they were still waiting. I waited a while longer and they were still waiting. And, finally, the chief judge advised me that the tradition was that the junior judge goes first at these discussions. And, so, I was kind of put on the spot right off the bat.
And part of what that conference was like -- and throughout, it really has -- I don't know if I'd say a surprise, but it's been illuminating to me. The judges really do roll up their sleeves and try to find the right answer. It's just the judges. But, as we say, "Well, we think this case is controlled by the Smith case," we get out the Smith case and we open it up and we look at it, leaning over each other's shoulders and seeing exactly what it says. If somebody says, "Well, but in this case, under the record, there was no evidence about this or there was no objection raised about that," you get out the record and you look at page, you know, 223, and you point to it and say, "Well, here's where the objection was raised." And the judges are very open. Hit's a very encouraging part of the process from my point of view. Nobody goes in there with set views. They want the benefit of the collegial process, the benefit of each other's views. And you have to be able to substantiate your position. There's no place for rhetoric. People are pointing to the law. And I found that a very encouraging part of the process, what goes on in the conference room, which was, of course, a part of the process that I hadn't participated in before.
DEWINE: It's something that we don't see, either.
ROBERTS: Right.
DEWINE: We have no way of seeing it.
ROBERTS: Right. And the positive part of that process to me was that nobody was invested in anything other than getting the right result. And they're prepared to be convinced, contrary to initial impressions. And I was as well. I found it a very encouraging part of the process.
Contents
Prev
Next
Last
