Chief Justice Roberts Addresses 3rd Circuit Judicial Conference

By Shannon P. Duffy
U.S. Courthouse Correspondent
 
As lawyers and their spouses streamed out of the Hyatt Regency grand  ballroom on Monday night, the overheard on-the-spot reviews of the keynote  speech by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. were decidedly mixed.
 
"He was funny," said one dinner attendant. "Very funny," said another. " But  he didn't say anything," said a third. "Nothing," the fourth agreed.
 
As the keynote speaker at the 3rd Circuit judicial conference, Roberts  chose the path often taken by sitting justices who want to avoid the potential  pitfalls of discussing current events: He peppered his speech with plenty of  humor and told a charming tale from the history of the judiciary.
 
A beaming 3rd Circuit Chief Judge Anthony J. Scirica introduced Roberts as  a stellar role model who "sets the standard for all of us - lawyers and judges  alike," and compared his leadership skills to those of legendary Chief  Justice  John Marshall.
 
By the time Scirica was done waxing eloquent about Roberts' brilliance and  modesty, combined with an "unusual ability to forge consensus," Roberts said he  was ready to end it.
 
"If I really did have a modest bone in my body, I would have run from the  room," Roberts told the crowd.
 
But Roberts quickly returned the favor, saying his decision to appoint  Scirica as chair of the Judicial Conference was his smartest appointment.
 
"Okay, Tony," he said. "I kept my side of the deal."
 
Roberts said he was happy to be in Philadelphia, but that the week was  "tinged with sadness" due to the news that Justice David Souter will be retiring  at the end of this years term. Souter, he said, is "one of the most genuine  individuals I have ever known."
 
And then came the history lesson.
 
Roberts started off by noting that one of his predecessors, Chief Justice  William Howard Taft, had traveled to Philadelphia in 1922 - where, according to  press accounts, he was met by "cheering crowds" - to honor the city that had  served as one of the Supreme Court's prior homes.  Philadelphia had served as the  temporary United States capital in the 1790s, prior to the establishment of  Washington, D.C.
 
Eliciting peals of laughter, Roberts described the rotund Taft as "perhaps the most  courteous" of the nation's chief justices, noting that he once stood up in a  train "to give his seat to three women."
 
But Roberts quickly returned to his history tale, explaining that Taft was  instrumental in persuading Congress to build the Supreme Court its own  building.
 
That august piece of architecture, Roberts said, now stands as one of the  most important symbols of the American judiciary. Several times a week,  judges  from as far away as Afghanistan will visit the Supreme Court, he said,  and seem  to be satisfied just to take in the splendor of the building and know that they  have visited the place where the notion of an independent judiciary was  born.
 
The building that Taft secured is "the envy of judges around the world" who  find "inspiration just by being in the building," Robert  said.

Comments

[Rose]

That's it?? A comment about the freaking building? How about the Constitution?? Oh yeah, neither Scirica nor Roberts give a damn about that. As far as they are concerned--- that book has been written, and all they do is "read" it... and their "interpretation" is original. Yeah, right. Let's face it, appointing Clarence Thomas and Scirica meant that the US Supreme Court was more important for its architecture than its jurisprudence.
People come from around the world to wonder at the incompetence of the most powerful judiciary on the planet -- and how fundamentally stupid its justices are compared to the intellectuals of the world.

[Rose]

Further more... the concept of "activist judges" is so ridiculous. What's the alternative? Comatose judges??
Of course judges, per the Constitution, interpret the law-- ACTIVELY. It's impossible to do so passively.

[Catherine Tighe]

You have just turned our country over to the corporations by your decision to make a corporation "human."
Since many of them are also in foreign countries this will further endanger our electoral process. This looks like fascism to me and it is outrageous that our democracy has been so compromised by a handful of men.