Following is the text of Senator Collins' remarks:
"Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor of the nomination of John Roberts to serve as Chief Justice of the United States.
The Chief Justice is commonly referred to as the "first among equals," a title reflecting the significance of this position in terms of shaping the Court, and serving as the head of the Judicial branch. Assuming he is confirmed, Judge Roberts will be only the 17th person in our nation's history to serve as Chief Justice.
In confirming a Chief Justice, we entrust this individual with an enormous power – the power to interpret the Constitution, to say what the law is, to guard one branch against the encroachments of another, and to defend our most sacred rights and liberties. Along with these powers, this individual also bears a responsibility to act with an understanding of the limited role of judicial review and the need for judicial restraint.
The cases that come before the Supreme Court each year present legal issues of tremendous complexity and import. Given the difficulty of the questions presented, it is not surprising that most good Justices do not know how they will rule before a case comes before them. Their decisions are rendered only after extensive briefing, argument, research, and discussion with the other Justices. Indeed, when any person goes before the Court, he or she has a right to expect that the Justices will approach the case with an open mind and a willingness to fully consider all of the arguments presented. Some of our colleagues have called on nominees to announce beforehand how they would rule in cases that have yet to come before them. Yet, a good judge will not know, and would not try to say – even hazarding a guess could raise questions about judicial impartiality and integrity.
Similarly, our ability to question nominees about future cases is limited by the difficulty of predicting the issues that will come before the Court over the next several decades. Twenty years ago, few would have expected that the Court would hear issues related to a presidential election challenge, would try to make sense of copyright laws in an electronic age, or would confront questions on how to protect our cherished civil liberties in light of a new domestic terrorism threat.
And even if nominees were to indicate how they would rule, the reality is that we are not in a position to hold them to their word. Appointments to the Court are, of course, lifetime appointments.
While we can not know with certainty how a nominee will rule on the many questions that may come before him or her, we can and must strive to take the measure of the person: carefully assessing the excellence of the nominee's qualifications, integrity, and judicial temperament, as well as the principles that will guide the nominee's decision-making.
Does the nominee have the intellect and learning necessary to be a superb jurist? Is he or she open-minded and pragmatic? Does he or she have a sense of restraint and humility concerning the role of a judge? Does the nominee take seriously the role of our courts in protecting our basic liberties and rights from the passions and fads of the moment? And for Judge Roberts, the answer to these questions is yes.
The excellence of his legal qualifications is beyond doubt. He is a superb attorney and one of the finest legal minds of his generation. Prior to his appointment to the D.C. Circuit in 2003, Judge Roberts had argued an impressive 39 cases before the Supreme Court, and more often than not, his arguments were accepted by a majority of the Court. The ABA Standing Committee on the Judiciary has had three separate occasions to review his qualifications for his nominations to the Court of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court, and in every instance, it has given Judge Roberts its highest possible rating. Earlier this month, I met with Judge Roberts to discuss his judicial philosophy, his views on the importance of precedent, and the role of the judiciary. I was extremely impressed by his answers to my questions, which reassured me that he will be a justice dedicated to the rule of law – not someone who bends the rules to suit personal preferences or to advance a particular agenda. At our meeting, I asked Judge Roberts about his views regarding the importance of stare decisis – the principle that courts should adhere to the law set forth in previously decided cases. I asked Judge Roberts whether a judge should follow precedent, even if he believed that the original case was incorrectly decided in the first instance. He told me that overruling a case is a "jolt to the legal system" and said that it is not enough that a judge may think a prior case was wrongly decided. He emphasized the importance that adherence to precedent plays in promoting evenhandedness, fairness, stability and predictability in the law.
Following my personal meeting with Judge Roberts, I felt confident that Judge Roberts was eminently qualified to serve as Chief Justice. The Judiciary Committee hearings have only further confirmed my view that he is the right person for this weighty position.
Without question, these hearings demonstrated Judge Roberts' keen legal intellect and commanding knowledge of the law and the precedents of the Supreme Court. He demonstrated a winning and collegial style while under fire, and his testimony has been justifiably praised. Most important, he demonstrated an understanding of the limited role of the judiciary and a deep and abiding commitment to the rule of law.
During the confirmation process, I was impressed by Judge Roberts' statement that he wants to be known, he said, "as a modest judge." This simple phrase is one that speaks volumes about the approach he brings to the Court. It tells us that he knows a judge must be restrained by the law, and by the principles, the practices, and the common understandings that make up our legal tradition.
It tells us that he has an abiding respect for our Constitution, for the separation of federal powers it describes, and for the powers it reserves for the states and for the people. Perhaps most important, it tells us that his rulings will not be influenced by his own political views and personal values, whatever they may be.
Given the increasing concerns about judicial activism and the desire by some to use the courts to achieve the political ends that have alluded them, I believe that Judge Roberts' modest and disciplined approach to the law will serve our nation well.
The President, in consultation with the Senate, has selected an outstanding nominee. We have fulfilled our advice and consent responsibility through extensive interviews, investigations and hearings. Judge Roberts has emerged from this process remaining true to his ideals of the proper role of a judge, and demonstrating beyond a doubt his fitness for the office. Based on my personal discussions with Judge Roberts, my review of his record, and his testimony before Judiciary Committee, I am confident that Judge Roberts will be a Justice committed to the rule of law and one who will protect the liberties and rights guaranteed by our Constitution. I believe he will exercise his judicial duties with an understanding of the limited role of the judiciary to review and decide the specific cases before them based on the law – not to make policy through case law. He will be guided not by his own personal view of what the law should be, but by a disciplined review and analysis of what the law is. He understands that the very integrity of our judicial system depends on judges exercising this restraint.
For these reasons, I look forward to voting to confirm Judge Roberts, and I applaud the President for making an outstanding choice."