Roberts deserves a fair hearing.

Byline: GUEST VIEWPOINT By Jack Roberts and Jim Westwood For The Register-Guard

The Aug. 26 Register-Guard editorial describing the proper role of a judge - which is to interpret and apply the law, not the judge's personal policy preferences - is directly relevant to the pending confirmation hearings on the nomination of Judge John Roberts to the U.S. Supreme Court.

We are two members of a group of lawyers who have joined with other concerned citizens to form Oregonians for Judge Roberts (www.orforjudgeroberts.com). Our group is dedicated not only to supporting the nomination of Judge Roberts, but more importantly, to support a fair and expeditious hearing for him, as well as an up-or-down vote on his nomination by the U.S. Senate before the new Supreme Court term begins in October.

The Register-Guard editorial referred to recent comments by Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens describing the appropriate role of a judge. Stevens pointed out that while he personally supported the California law allowing the medical use of marijuana, he felt compelled to vote with the majority in finding that voter-passed initiative was in conflict with federal drug laws.

Stevens was in a similar quandary in a case allowing local governments to condemn property for use by another private party. In each case, he felt compelled to support the law, not his personal views.

As The Register-Guard also said, this is precisely the standard to which Judge Roberts should be held in his upcoming confirmation hearings: Will he enforce the law or his personal beliefs? Based upon his record as a lawyer and as an appellate judge, we are confident that Roberts - like Stevens and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, whose seat he has been nominated to fill - will follow the law.

Those who expect nominees to declare in advance their views on a variety of legal issues likely to come before the court disagree with this opinion. They want nominees to declare in advance their views precisely because they expect those nominees, if confirmed, will rule according to their personal beliefs rather than the law. Yet, if they had asked Justice Stevens his views on medical marijuana during his confirmation hearings years ago, they would doubtless have misjudged the vote he ultimately cast on this question.

In 1993, President Bill Clinton appointed Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the U.S. Supreme Court. As a former American Civil Liberties Union lawyer, Ginsburg had a record of advocacy on a wide range of issues. Senators of both parties tried to pin her down on how she might rule on those and other issues if they came before the Supreme Court - issues ranging from reapportionment to school vouchers to homosexuality. She deftly, and appropriately, turned those inquiries aside. The Senate still approved her on a 96-3 vote.

The reason it is important for a judicial nominee to decline to state opinions on matters likely to come before the court is not simply to maintain an appearance of impartiality; it is actually to remain impartial until all the evidence has been submitted and the arguments of the attorneys have been heard. After all, litigants pay their attorneys generous sums to prepare these cases. Obviously, they believe there is some value in the information their lawyer is presenting or they could save a lot of money by having judges rule on their cases the moment they are filed.

All but three Republican senators voted to confirm Ginsburg, not because they agreed with her politics but because she was qualified for the job. That was based in large part on their confidence that she would decide cases based on the law, not on her politics. Roberts is cut out of similar cloth. We are confident that the hearings will show him to be intelligent, honest and fair. We hope the hearing process itself will exemplify those same qualities.

Jack Roberts is executive director of Lane Metro Partnership. Jim Westwood is a partner with Stoel Rives LLP and chairman-elect of the Constitutional Law Section of the Oregon State Bar Association. These comments reflect their individual views.