John Roberts, Jr to become a Supreme

Roberts has served as a DC circuit judge for two years. Sorry if I gave the impression that his experience has been only as an attorney with my earlier cut and paste. Two years on the bench is not sufficient experience to become a Supreme IMO, but apparently, there are no special requirements for past experience in the job description. Roberts was the judge who ruled on the infamous french fry eaten by a child on the Metro incident. Snip:

In Hedgepeth v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority,30 Judge Roberts wrote an opinion allowing state governments to arrest children for minor offenses authorizing issuance of a citation for adults. The opinion, joined by Republican-appointed Judges Henderson and Williams, rejected the civil rights claims brought on behalf of a 12-year-old girl who had been handcuffed, arrested and taken away by the police for eating a french fry in the D.C. Metro. The girl claimed that her equal protection rights had been violated because, under then-D.C. law, an adult in the same situation would only have been given a citation, while the police were required to arrest her since she was a juvenile. Rejecting the claim, Judge Roberts asserted that the D.C. law was subject to the most deferential kind of judicial review – rational basis review – since juveniles are not a suspect class and do not enjoy a fundamental right to freedom from restraint when there is probable cause for arrest. Judge Roberts concluded that the D.C. law was constitutional because, although perhaps unwise, it was “rationallyrelated to the legitimate goal of promoting parental awareness and involvement with children who commit delinquent acts.”31 Judge Roberts also held that a recent Supreme Court case, Atwater v. City of Lago Vista,32 foreclosed the girl’s other claim that the arrest violated her Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizures. Atwater held that the Fourth Amendment does not protect against arrest and detention for minor offenses, like seat belt violations, even where the maximum penalty for the offense is a small fine. The girl distinguished Atwater by pointing out that, unlike in Atwater, where the Supreme Court was principally concerned about creating a non-rigid constitutional standard that would hobble an officer’s discretion to decide, in the heat of the moment, whether to arrest or issue a citation, D.C. law afforded officers no discretion in her case and mandated arrest. As a result, the girl claimed, her arrest should be subjected to a reasonableness review, rather than Atwater’s blanket rule. Rejecting the claim, Judge Roberts concluded that “the most natural reading of Atwater” precludes reasonableness review whenever an arrest, including the girl’s, is supported by probable cause.