This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2005, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.
WASHINGTON - The first confirmation hearing for a U.S. Supreme Court chief justice in nearly two decades began Monday with Republicans and Democrats at odds over the purpose and ground rules of the hearing.
Majority Republicans argued the Judiciary Committee should not delve into the personal beliefs of nominee John Roberts while Democrats contended that a lifetime appointment as leader of the high court demands a close examination of Roberts' philosophy.
Capping off nearly four hours of formal speeches, Roberts vowed that if confirmed to replace the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist he would work to "protect the independence and integrity of the Supreme Court."
"I have no agenda, but I do have a commitment," he said in brief remarks. "If I am confirmed, I will confront every case with an open mind. I will fully and fairly analyze the legal arguments that are presented. . . . And I will remember that it's my job to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat."
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, led off GOP efforts to keep the committee's questions away from specific legal issues.
"Some have said that nominees who do not spill their guts about whatever a senator wants to know are hiding something from the American people," Hatch said. "Some compare a nominee's refusal to violate his judicial oath or abandon judicial ethics to taking the Fifth Amendment. These might be catchy sound bites, but they are patently false."
Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, the committee's ranking Democrat, disagreed with Hatch, saying that a nominee needs to be vetted, especially in this case, because, if approved, Roberts would lead the third branch of government for decades to come.
"The light of the nominations process is intense," Leahy said. "It's intense because it is the only time that light will shine, and the afterglow lasts for the rest of a justice's career."
Hearings for Roberts' confirmation to be the 17th chief justice will continue today as senators begin questioning the nominee on his background and ideology. It's the start of a fall congressional session that also will include confirmation hearings for a yet-to-be-named successor to retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
Through Monday's formal speeches - some favorable, others more harsh - Roberts sat with an unwavering, attentive look in the historic Senate Caucus Room, where hearings were held on the Titanic disaster, the Iran-Contra affair and most recently, the confirmation of Justice Clarence Thomas.
In arguing that the confirmation process has turned too divisive and intrusive, Hatch cited the one-day nomination-to-confirmation of Utahn George Sutherland to the high court in 1922.
The then-U.S. senator was approved unanimously by his colleagues, Hatch said, without any hearings.
"There was no inquisition, no fishing expedition, no scurrilous and false attack ads," Hatch said.
The former Judiciary Committee chairman said in an interview after the hearing that the coming days will be contentious.
"You can see the battle lines forming," Hatch said, noting that he still intends to ask some "tough questions" but that he will also help protect Roberts from being maligned.
Still, he maintained, it is Roberts' job not to answer questions that might impede his ability to serve on the high court. "Any senator has a right to ask questions he or she has," Hatch said, "no matter how stupid they may be."
He added that Roberts' no-note-card, six-minute speech was impressive. "Anybody watching had to be impressed. It was intelligent. It was humbling. It was very, very good."
That doesn't mean Roberts won over all of the committee.
Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wisconsin, said Roberts must be "forthcoming" with his views.
"The impact of this nominee in our country, should he be confirmed, will be enormous," Feingold said. "That means our scrutiny of this nominee must be intense and thorough."