It was the summer of 2005. Washington was sweating. And the Supreme Court was about to undergo a tectonic shift that no one—not even the man at the center of it—saw coming. If you're looking for a quick answer, President George W. Bush appointed Justice Roberts. But honestly, that’s just the surface. The story of how John Glover Roberts Jr. became the 17th Chief Justice of the United States is actually a weirdly lucky tale of timing, tragedy, and a last-minute "promotion" that changed the course of American law for decades.
The Switch: Who Appointed Justice Roberts and How It Almost Didn't Happen
Most people forget that John Roberts wasn't actually supposed to be the Chief Justice. Not at first.
💡 You might also like: December 1st Florida Man: The Truth Behind the Legend
On July 19, 2005, George W. Bush stood in the East Room of the White House and announced Roberts as his pick to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. Roberts was a young, sharp judge on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. He had a resume that looked like it was grown in a lab for conservative jurists: Harvard Law, a clerkship for William Rehnquist, and a reputation as a "lawyer's lawyer" who had argued 39 cases before the High Court.
Then, everything changed.
In September 2005, while Roberts’ nomination for O’Connor’s seat was still pending, Chief Justice William Rehnquist died after a long battle with thyroid cancer. Suddenly, there were two holes on the bench. Bush faced a choice. He could stick with the plan, or he could go big.
He went big. He withdrew the original nomination and re-nominated Roberts to take over Rehnquist’s center seat. Basically, Roberts went from being a "backup player" to the "team captain" before he even stepped onto the field.
The 2005 Nomination Timeline
- July 1, 2005: Justice Sandra Day O’Connor announces her retirement.
- July 19, 2005: Bush nominates Roberts for O’Connor’s Associate Justice seat.
- September 3, 2005: Chief Justice William Rehnquist passes away.
- September 5, 2005: Bush withdraws the first nomination and picks Roberts for Chief Justice.
- September 29, 2005: The Senate confirms him.
The "Balls and Strikes" Moment
If you’ve ever watched a Supreme Court hearing, you know they can be dry. Boring, even. But Roberts’ hearing was different. He was incredibly smooth. He didn't use notes. He had this Midwestern charm—even though he was a high-powered D.C. insider—that seemed to disarm the Senate Judiciary Committee.
He famously told the senators: "Judges are like umpires. Umpires don’t make the rules; they apply them. The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They are there to make sure everybody plays by the rules. But it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ball game to see the umpire."
It was a brilliant bit of branding. It made him sound humble. It made him sound non-ideological. Of course, critics like Senator Dick Durbin and then-Senator Barack Obama weren't buying it. They worried that "calling balls and strikes" was just a clever way to hide a deeply conservative agenda.
The Senate Vote: A Divided House
When the final vote came down on September 29, 2005, the result was 78-22.
That sounds like a landslide today, right? In the context of 2026, where every vote is a 50-50 knife fight, 78 votes is massive. But back then, it was actually somewhat contentious. Every single Republican voted for him, but the Democrats were split down the middle. Half (22) voted no, including heavyweights like Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Ted Kennedy.
Why Bush Chose Him
George W. Bush wasn't just looking for a smart guy. He wanted a "known quantity." Roberts had served in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations. He was a protégé of the conservative legal movement, yet he didn't have a long paper trail of controversial rulings because he hadn't been a judge for very long—only about two years on the D.C. Circuit.
Bush's White House Counsel at the time, Harriet Miers, had actually led the search for the nominee. Ironically, after Roberts was elevated to the Chief position, Bush tried to nominate Miers herself for the O’Connor seat. That blew up in his face, eventually leading to the appointment of Samuel Alito.
The Roberts Legacy: Was the Umpire Right?
Looking back from 2026, the "who appointed Justice Roberts" question matters because the Court he leads is so different from the one he joined.
🔗 Read more: Can a president have 3 terms? What most people get wrong about the 10-year rule
Roberts has spent two decades trying to protect the "institutional integrity" of the Court. He’s the guy who saved Obamacare (NFIB v. Sebelius) in 2012 by calling the individual mandate a "tax." Conservatives were furious. They felt he betrayed them.
But then you look at cases like Shelby County v. Holder, which gutted parts of the Voting Rights Act, or Loper Bright, which recently ended Chevron deference. In those moments, he is exactly the conservative George W. Bush hoped he would be. He is a master of the "long game," moving the law to the right slowly and methodically, even if he occasionally side-steps the most explosive culture war battles.
Nuance is Key
It's tempting to put Roberts in a box. But he’s a bit of a "strategic minimalist." He hates broad, sweeping rulings—well, usually. He preferred a 6-3 or 7-2 consensus over a 5-4 split. However, as the Court has moved further right with the additions of Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, Roberts has sometimes found himself as the "liberal" wing of the conservative majority. That's a weird place for a Bush appointee to be.
What You Can Do Now
Understanding the appointment of John Roberts isn't just a history lesson. It’s a blueprint for how the Supreme Court works today. If you want to dive deeper into how these appointments shape your daily life, here are a few things to look at:
- Read the "Balls and Strikes" Transcript: Look up his 2005 opening statement. It’s a masterclass in legal communication and shows why he was so hard to vote against.
- Follow the "Shadow Docket": Much of the Court's work happens outside of big, televised arguments. Research how the Roberts Court handles emergency applications.
- Check the "Center" of the Court: Use a tool like the Martin-Quinn Scores to see where Roberts sits ideologically compared to the other justices. You might be surprised to see how much he's "moved" (or how much the Court has moved around him).
The reality is that George W. Bush got exactly what he wanted: a brilliant, conservative jurist who would lead the Court for a generation. Whether you think that’s a good thing depends entirely on whether you think the umpire is calling the game fairly.