Roberts hasn’t strayed from his umpire role

Re “How much of an umpire is the chief justice?” Current, Sept. 24

David Savage wrongly concludes that Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has strayed from the modest judicial role envisioned by Roberts’ analogy of judges as umpires.

That analogy contrasted Roberts’ judicial philosophy, based on objective interpretation of the law, with judicial activism, in which judges shape the law to fit their own policy preferences.

A judge-as-umpire is duty-bound to strike down statutes that violate the Constitution or distort laws. Objective interpretation of the law undergirds two opinions misconstrued by Savage as Roberts departing from the umpire role.

In one case, the opinion sought to hold federal regulators to a plausible interpretation of the Clean Water Act. In the second case, the dissent concluded that the U.S. attorney general’s interpretation of the Controlled Substances Act was valid.

Savage points to the dissent’s would-be nullification of Oregon’s Death With Dignity Act, but a judge-as-umpire cannot ignore the Constitution’s command that federal law be supreme.

CURT LEVEY

General Counsel

Committee for Justice

Washington