John Roberts, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, showed his charisma at a speech at the Northwestern School of Law on Feb. 2, charmingly talking about his predecessors and dishing out advice to a crowd that sometimes laughed like it was at a Daily Show taping.
Roberts is visiting as the Howard J. Trienens Visiting Judicial Scholar, allowing him to teach classes, meet with students and deliver a lecture Thursday afternoon. He delivered an uncontroversial speech about the four “most important” chief justices, but used his engaging wit to keep the audience interested in what could have been a dull history lesson.
Despite being the conservative chief on a court that will soon be involved in controversial decisions, including a potential showdown on abortion, Roberts made no enemies by using a charming persona and a somewhat bland speech.
He also fielded questions from the law students in attendance, talking about the salary of federal judges and the issue of term limits, but nimbly avoiding answering a question about how he would have decided the Brown v. Board of Education case.
“I would decide it the same way,” he said, but said the wording could have been changed. “I wouldn’t want to comment on how it could be improved.”
That was the only potentially troublesome moment in an otherwise safe afternoon, where he also gave some advice to the dean of the law school. When asked if there is anything setting students today back compared to the law students of Roberts’ generation, Roberts said that there isn’t enough focus on rhetoric in education today. Roberts said that too many lawyers aren’t able to take ideas and communicate them in an effective way, either to explain an issue or argue an opinion.
First-year graduate student Jonathan Schaan said he agreed that rhetoric was an important asset that was not taught enough.
“I’ve heard that it’s a skill that lawyers are lacking,” he said. “They’re trying to teach us a little bit about using language to be an advocate.”
On the anniversary of the first time the Supreme Court convened, Roberts’ speech focused on four former Chief Justices: John Jay, the first; John Marshall, the greatest; William Howard Taft, the organizer; and Charles Evans Hughes, the independent. Roberts chronicled the importance of each one, focusing on how they transformed the Court and how their issues are still relevant today.
Jay oversaw the first Supreme Court, but had few cases to hear and ended up resigning after only six uneventful years. Roberts noted that even today the court’s docket can run dry when fewer important cases are in the judicial system, as happened earlier in the year. However, he said that the Court’s case list has now become so long that they will hear three arguments a day instead of the normal two.
“We must be careful in extrapolating from short-term trends,” Roberts said, saying that the court’s dry docket didn’t diminish its importance.
Even though Marshall is regarded as the greatest Chief Justice for his Marbury v. Madison decision that established the power of the Court, Roberts praised his work in unifying the court. He joked about Marshall forcing the justices to discuss cases over dinner and only drink wine on rainy days, but praised his ability to bring the justices together.
“[Without that] I doubt the court could have obtained the stature it enjoys today,” he said.
Roberts’ wit shone when talking about Taft, whom Roberts described as “if not larger than life… certainly large enough.” He continued joking about Taft’s size by relaying a standard Washington legend about Taft’s generosity when riding a street car.
“He got up and gave his seat to three women,” Roberts said with a smile.
However, Roberts commended Taft for establishing the Conference of Senior Circuit Judges, an organization that has become the Judicial Conference that Roberts oversees today.
Finally, Roberts talked about Charles Evans Hughes, a man who was said to “look like God and talk like God.” Hughes is notable for fighting FDR’s courtpacking plan, using skilled argument to deny the scheme and maintain the court’s independence.
Roberts said he is always aware of the Court’s history and carries it with him every day.
“The office has come down to me with honor,” he said. “I will make sure it goes to my predecessor the same way it came to me.”
Though the speech itself did not make waves, observers seemed to be impressed with Roberts’ ease at the podium and conversational style.
“He’s an elegant speaker,” said Weinberg junior Katie Coleman. “He really walked us through the history and made us see how far we’ve come.”
Roberts used this relaxed persona when fielding questions, for example, joking about his salary.
“During the confirmation hearings, I said judges should be more like umpires since major league umpires make twice as much as a federal district judge,” he said.
Perhaps his funniest moment came in response to a question that played off his speech. When asked what former Chief Justice he would most like to have a conversation with, he didn’t choose Marshall but instead his successor, Roger Taney. Taney wrote what Roberts called the “most disastrous opinion in Supreme Court history” in the Dred Scott case.
“I’d like to have a conversation with him before he did that,” Roberts deadpanned to the laughing crowd.