ACLJ Says 2000 Television Interview with John Roberts Underscores His Judicial Philosophy of Interpreting the Constitution - Not Legislating from Bench.

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), specializing in constitutional law, said today the television interview with John Roberts in 2000 where the Supreme Court nominee addressed a wide variety of issues clearly underscores the fact that Roberts has a judicial philosophy of interpreting the Constitution and not legislating from the bench. In the interview, Roberts concluded that the nation "does not have a very conservative Supreme Court." Roberts' remarks focused on the Supreme Court's rejection of Nebraska's ban on partial-birth abortion, the high court's rejection of prayer at high school football games, and the Supreme Court's decision upholding the right of the Boy Scouts to determine who should serve in leadership - rejecting a challenge from the homosexual community.

"The television interview makes it clear that John Roberts embraces a sound and welcomed judicial philosophy: judges must not legislate from the bench and must interpret the Constitution," said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ, who is working to ensure that Roberts is confirmed to the high court. "In that interview, John Roberts expressed concern about the very issues that concern us - and millions of Americans. In concluding that we 'do not have a very conservative Supreme Court,' Roberts acknowledged what is now very clear - there has been a shift in the way the high court views some of the most important social and political issues of our day."

Sekulow added: "The analysis and comments provided by Roberts underscore his judicial philosophy of interpreting the Constitution, not re-writing it. The judicial philosophy and temperament of John Roberts will serve this nation well. We look forward to the confirmation hearings and his approval as the 109th Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States."

The ACLJ played a key role in the critical cases decided by the Supreme Court in 2000. The ACLJ represented the Texas school district in the football game prayer case. The ACLJ also filed amicus briefs with the high court in the Boy Scouts case and the Nebraska partial-birth abortion case. In fact, the ACLJ is aggressively defending the national ban on partial-birth abortion which is being challenged in the courts and likely to end up at the Supreme Court this term or next.

Led by Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow, the ACLJ specializes in constitutional law and is based in Washington, D.C. The ACLJ is online at www.aclj.org.