John+G.+Roberts

Name: John G. Robert s  Date of Birth: January 27, 1955 Current Age: 53 Date of Appointment: September 29, 2005 Appointed by: George W. Bush  Early life: He was born in Buffalo, New York and was the son of John Glover Roberts, Sr. (1928-2008) and Rosemary, née Podrasky. His great-grandparents were all from Czechoslovakia, when Roberts was young they moved to Long Beach, Indiana and had three sisters: Kathy, Peggy, and Barbara. His family was lower middle class growing up. Education: Roberts attended a catholic grade school and then a catholic boarding school. He was known for his devotion to his studies and was the captain of his football team and regional champion in wrestling and did much more. He was accepted to Harvard, graduating with an A.B. in history. Afterwards he attended Harvard Law School and graduating with a J.D. Legal/Political Career prior to serving on the US Supreme Court: He submitted to the Senate Judiciary committee before his Supreme Court confirmation hearing. Friends/Family/Mentors/Experiences that could have shaped your justice's views: When he graduated law school he served as a law clerk for Judge Henry Friendly on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals for a year.  Voting Record: He mostly votes majority about 99.9% of the time  Decisions: [Study 3 key decisions by your justice and summarize them. If you are working with a partner, each of you should do 3.] Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficiente unaio do Vegetal (UDV) is a religous organization. They brought the case to federal court to stop the government from interfering with UDV using hoasca, which is a substance used in their ceremoniesthat has a drug prohibitied by the controlled substances act. UDV argued because the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which prevents substantial imposition on religious practices in the absence of government interest. - Oyez The question was does the Religous freedom restoration act of 1993 need the government to permit the importation, distribution, possesion, and use of the illegal drug? The conclusion was yes,in a 8-0 decision the court held that the government had failed to prove compelling interest in regulating the UDV's use of drugs for their religous reasons.
 * Personal History **
 * US Supreme Court Career **

In Brigham city, Utah vs Stuart, police went to a house were they saw people drinking outside and heard shouting inside. When they came to house they could see a fight going on between a juvenile and four adults. They saw somone get punched till the point were he spit blood. They then announced their presence, but they werent heard so they went inside the house. They arrested the men for the delinquency of a minor and other offenses. They go to court and the judge refused the collected evidence because it was a warrentless search in violation of the fourth amendment. The government argued saying that it was covered by the "emergeny aid doctrine" because they say the officers responded to seeing the man get punched. The Supreme court of Utah disagreed because the doctrine only applies when there is an unconscious, semiconscious, or missing person who is feared injured or dead. The officers went in not because they were worried about the injured man but because of the law enforcement.- oyez The question was, what reasonable amount of concern is needed to use the emergency aid exception to the fourth amendments warrant required? The conclusion was, in a unanimous decision that the police are allowed to go into the house without a warrant when they have a good reason to believe that someone is seriously hurt or threatened to be seriously hurt.

In the case of Jones vs Flowers, Gary Jones moved out of his house and into an apartment, while his wife continued to live in the house. Jones didnt tell the state of his new address, and after several years of unpaid property taxes the tax authority sent a letter by certified mail to his house telling him that if the taxes were paid the house would be sold. The letter was returned as unclaimed, because he wasnt living there. The property was eventually sold to Linda Flowers. The question was, when mailed a tax sale notice or property forfeiture is returned undelivered, does the fourteenth amendment's due process clause need the governmment to make any more of an effort to locate the owner before taking the owners property? The conclusion was, Yes in a 5-3 decision that more reasonable steps are needed after a mailed notice is returned undelivered. <span style="font-size: 13pt; font-family: 'ArialMT','sans-serif'; mso-hansi-font-family: ArialMT; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> Judicial Philosophy/Ideology: [What have you learned about your justice's views based on his voting record and decisions? Write it here.] John G. Roberts is a Moderat Conservative, basicaly he is willing to give less government involved answers.