Topic: Salary and Budget
Senator: Sessions
Date: SEPTEMBER 14, 2005
Contents
SESSIONS: Judge, are you aware of the salary that you'll be paid if you become...
ROBERTS: In a vague way, yes.
SESSIONS: And I suppose you were, when you were affirmed to the court of appeals.
ROBERTS: Yes.
SESSIONS: You're not going to be back next week asking for a pay raise, are you?
(LAUGHTER)
ROBERTS: Not next week, no.
(LAUGHTER)
SESSIONS: Chief was pretty -- always over here knocking on our door about pay raises. But, you know, we have a deficit in our country...
(LAUGHTER)
And you're paid the same -- I guess the chief's maybe paid more than senators. But for the most part, judges are paid what members of Congress are paid. And I, frankly, am dubious that we should give ourselves big pay raises when we can't balance the budget.
I also chair the Courts Subcommittee, Courts and Administration. And as chief, you have a serious responsibility with regard to managing and providing guidance to the Congress on the needs of the court system. I know that -- I'm sure that you will do that with great skill and determination. But let me ask you: Will you also seek to manage that court system -- and I hesitate, but I will use the word "bureaucracy" at times -- effectively and efficiently and keep it a lean and effective management team and maintain as tight a budget as you can maintain?
ROBERTS: Well, if I am confirmed, Senator, the answer is yes. I'm aware that there is, for example, the administrative office and they provide valuable services to judges around the country. As a consumer of their services for the past two years, I have certainly particular views about where I think they're effective and helpful to judges and other areas where -- like any bureaucracy -- where I think they can do better. It is an area where my first priority is going to be to listen because I'm sure there are many considerations of which I'm not aware that are very important for the chief justice to take into account.
And, after listening, I'll try to make the best decisions I can about administering that system.
SESSIONS: Well, there are a lot of problems. Judges are not happy with the General Services Administration, and sometimes GSA is not happy with the judges, and sometimes judges overreach and want to be treated awfully specially. And so I think you have a challenge there. I would look forward to working with you. If you'll help us make sure that your court system is lean and efficient and productive, we'll try to make sure that you have sufficient resources to do those jobs. One more thing that I'd just like to inquire about, and that deals with stare decisis, the deference you give to a prior decision of the Supreme Court. And you've mentioned a number of factors. And I recognize those as valid and worthy of great consideration. But it almost strikes me that is a bit circular. In other words, the court is creating a wall around its opinions to try to avoid seeing them overruled. Isn't it true that your first oath is to enforce the Constitution, as God gives you the ability to understand it, and that sometimes decisions have to be reversed if they are contrary to a fair and just reading of the Constitution?
ROBERTS: Yes, Senator, the oath we take is to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States. That's true. And the way judges go about that is within a system of precedent and, consistent with rules of stare decisis, no judge starts the day by opening a blank slate and he said, "What should the Constitution mean today?"
You operate within those systems of precedents. That's the best way that we judges have determined to interpret the Constitution and laws consistent with principles of stare decisis.
SESSIONS: Judge, I would just conclude with noting that I remember when the court, in the 9th Circuit, ruled that striking down the Pledge of Allegiance -- then Majority Leader Tom Daschle came to the floor, as now Minority Leader Harry Reid did at the same afternoon, and they criticized the opinion and criticized the 9th Circuit and expressed concern about activism in that circuit, which I have done often myself.
SESSIONS: But I responded that my concern was not so much with the circuit, but with the confusing number of opinions from the Supreme Court and that I had no doubt that there was Supreme Court authority that would justify the 9th Circuit rendering the ruling that they did.
And I say that because we've just received word today that a judge in San Francisco has upheld -- has ruled that the pledge's reference to one nation under God violates the Constitution and should be stricken down.
So that case is going to be winding its way forward.
I'm not going to ask you to comment on it, because it will obviously come before you. But will you tell us whether or not you are concerned about the inconsistencies of these opinions? And will you work to try to establish a body of law in the Supreme Court that recognizes the free exercise rights of American citizens in regard to religion and to avoid a state establishment of a religion?
ROBERTS: Well, we talked about this in the committee hearings on a couple of occasions. And I think everyone would agree that the religion jurisprudence under the First Amendment, the establishment clause and the free exercise clause, could be clearer.
The Ten Commandments cases are the example right at hand. You have two decisions of the Supreme Court. Only one justice thinks both are right. That is an area in which I think the court can redouble its efforts to try to come to some consistency in its approach.
Now it obviously is an area that cases depend in a very significant way on the particular facts. And any time that's the case, the differences may be explained by the facts.
You do have the two provisions, as your question recognized, the establishment clause and the free exercise clause.
ROBERTS: And as I've said before, I think that both of those are animated by the principle that the framers intended the rights of full citizenship to be available to all citizens, without regard to their religious belief or lack of religious belief. That, I think, is the underlying principle, and hopefully the court's precedents over the years will continue to give life to that ideal.
SESSIONS: Well, thank you, Judge Roberts. You have by your testimony validated the high opinions that so many have of you. I'm confident you would make a great chief justice. Thank you.
SPECTER: Thank you, Senator Sessions.
Contents
Prev
Next
Last
