Senator warns Supreme Court nominee of tough questions ahead

US: The US senate judiciary committee chairman has warned Supreme Court nominee John Roberts to expect tough questioning at …

US: The US senate judiciary committee chairman has warned Supreme Court nominee John Roberts to expect tough questioning at confirmation hearings due to start on September 6th over the court's "judicial activism" and lack of respect for congress.

The warning marks the second time this month that senator Arlen Specter from Pennsylvania, a respected independent-minded Republican, has signalled plans to use Mr Roberts's confirmation hearing as a forum for sharply criticising what he describes as the court's tendency to denigrate congress's thoroughness and wisdom in passing laws.

Mr Specter's questions go to the heart of controversial debates about the role of the judiciary and the separation of powers. They could present Mr Roberts with the difficult choice of disagreeing with the committee chairman, or rebuking justices he hopes will soon be his colleagues.

In a four-page letter to Mr Roberts, Mr Specter criticised portions of Supreme Court rulings and comments on two cases involving the Americans With Disabilities Act, which congress passed in 1990.

READ MORE

He particularly criticised chief justice William Rehnquist's writings in a 2000 decision.

He told Mr Roberts he would ask whether he agrees that Judge Rehnquist's reasoning was an example "of manufactured rationales used by the Supreme Court to exercise the role of super legislature".

Mr Specter's letter did not address the court's rulings so much as justices' comments which, he said, showed a disrespect for congress and its diligence in making laws.

On August 8th, Mr Specter sent Mr Roberts a similar letter regarding Supreme Court cases which overturned laws dealing with interstate commerce.

Judiciary committee member Charles Schumer, a Democrat from New York, praised both of Mr Specter's letters.

He "has made it clear that learning a nominee's judicial philosophy on important cases is essential in deciding whether or not he should be confirmed to a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court".