7-20-05, 9:43 am
From 'troubling' and 'concern' to outright opposition, civil rights and liberties organizations expressed immediate disapproval of President Bush’s nomination of ideologically conservative John G. Roberts to replace Sandra Day O’Connor on the high court.
Wade Henderson, executive director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR), characterized the choice as a signal of Bush’s decision to adopt the 'politics of conflict and division over bipartisan consensus.' Henderson added, 'While Judge Roberts may not have been on the Rev. James Dobson’s short list of pre-approved nominees, let’s be clear – John Roberts is no mainstream judge.'
Others, such as Nan Aron of the Alliance for Justice, a 25-year old non-partisan coalition that deals with matters related to the judiciary, questioned Roberts’ experience and whether or not the Senate knows enough about his views of the law to rubber stamp Bush’s choice. She described Roberts as having 'limited judicial experience' and his record as being so shallow that many 'unanswered questions' remain about his opinions.
But Aron added in a press statement that from what we do know of Roberts’ record and the opinions he has expressed, he seems to have 'helped craft legal policies that sought to weaken school desegregation efforts, the reproductive rights of women, environmental protections, church-state separation and the voting rights of African Americans.'
The Senate really needs to question Roberts about his positions on these matters of law, Aron argued. Henderson of LCCR echoed these remarks: 'We urge the Senate to conduct a complete, thorough and probing review of John Roberts’s record.' He called on the Senate investigate Roberts’ qualifications and his judicial philosophy.
Henderson also added that President Bush and Roberts be open and honest with the Senate by producing all relevant documents and answering all questions.
Congressman Charlie Gonzalez, chair of the Congressional Hispanic Congress’ (CHC) Civil Rights Task Force remarked, 'Despite outward appearances, the unfortunate truth is that John G. Roberts was nominated without any meaningful bipartisan consultation between the White House and the Senate.'
In a statement released last evening, the CHC expressed concern about Roberts’ views on the rights of immigrant workers, affirmative action policies at colleges and universities, and bilingual education.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) added its voice to the chorus of concern. That organization raised doubts about Roberts’ willingness to protect civil rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution.
In fact, in the 1991 case of Rust v. Sullivan, while serving as deputy solicitor general, Roberts wrote a brief on the case expressing hostility to a woman’s right to choose and the right to privacy enshrined in the Roe v. Wade decision.
While this particular case had nothing to do with the merits of Roe v. Wade, Roberts chose to describe Roe v. Wade as 'wrongly decided and should be overruled.'
In another abortion related case, Roberts defended the right of anti-choice groups like Operation Rescue to harass women entering clinics, now a federal crime upheld by the Supreme Court.
On the issue of the separation of church and state, Roberts authored a brief arguing that a public school could sponsor prayer at school functions such as graduations because students could choose not to attend graduation ceremonies, making it a non-coerced religious activity. The Supreme Court rejected this argument saying that it 'turns the First Amendment on its head' because it forces a (minor) student to choose between attending a major life event and religious beliefs.
Other opinions Roberts has expressed as a circuit court judge suggest that he is ideologically pre-disposed to the extreme right-wing concept of 'states rights,' which essentially adopts the unswerving position that federally mandated protections are not applicable to states that do not want to follow them.
States rights advocates regularly call for not renewing civil rights legislation, such as the Voting Rights Act, overturning laws related to eliminating gender discrimination, such as Title IX funding, Roe v. Wade, and the Violence Against Women Act, and elimination or weakening of other such protections against abuse of the environment, food and drug regulation, safety regulations and so on.
Some states rights advocates use the philosophy to dismantle protective federal laws they think limit the profit margins of large corporations. Others use the concept as cover for extremist religious beliefs. Which perspective does John Roberts hold?
Anthony D. Romero, ACLU Executive Director, urged the Senate to examine Roberts’ record carefully and keep the key role of the Supreme Court as a protector of freedom uppermost in their minds while making their decision. 'Without the Supreme Court,' Romero said in a prepared statement, 'the South would still be segregated, illegal abortions would be claiming thousands of lives, the indigent would have no right to a lawyer, and lesbian and gay Americans could be imprisoned for their private sexual conduct.'
While in the last 30 years the Supreme Court has made key decision protecting women’s rights, some women’s organizations aren’t convinced that Roberts will uphold that tradition. Marcia D. Greenberger, Co-President of the National Women’s Law Center, said, 'What we do know about Judge Roberts’s record raises serious concerns. He has repeatedly refused to say whether he believes in a constitutional right to privacy, or whether that right encompasses a woman’s right to choose. He has advanced legal positions that are hostile to women’s legal rights, including Title IX.'
People for the American Way Director Ralph Neas argued that Roberts’ career is short and his record isn’t clear, but added that from what can be gleaned from his job as a corporate lawyer and as a public servant 'Roberts has failed to show a commitment to fundamental civil and constitutional rights.'
While Bush may count on Roberts’ inexperience and short record to foster an image as 'non-controversial,' the Senate has the responsibility to be swayed by more than just image. The substance of Roberts’ views are at stake. Will he uphold Constitutional protections, civil rights, equality, privacy, separation of church and state, and so on? Don’t count on it.
--Reach Joel Wendland at jwendland@politicalaffairs.net.
