7-25-05,9:39am
In response to the White House announcement of its intention not to release John Roberts’ “working papers” from his time as a public servant in the first Bush administration, organizations concerned about his real record and his views on the Constitution are wondering what he and the administration are trying to hide?
Group Challenges Roberts on Anti-Choice Contributions
Has Judge John Roberts ever supported a pro-choice candidate? asks a campaign known as .
The group of activists that started announced over the weekend that they will pressure John Roberts to answer to whether he has ever supported a pro-choice candidate for federal office. Federal Election Commission records show that John Roberts has only contributed to candidates that are anti-choice.
“No person is entitled to a seat on the Supreme Court,” said Damien Goodmon, a spokesman for . “Its John Roberts’ burden to convince the Senate and the American people that his long tenure on the bench would be used to continue protecting the hard earned rights guaranteed in the constitution, not turning back the clock to a dark time without personal liberties and workplace protections. The country deserves no less.”
According to , Roberts’ record on numerous issues of law, civil rights, the Bill of Rights, privacy, and federal protections should worry most Americans. While Roberts is likely to present the pat answer to most inquiries that he will uphold the law, his slim record and little experience suggest that he is an activist on the far right interested in undermining existing law and civil rights and liberties protections.
Will the Real Roberts Please Stand Up?
The following items are culled together to give an overall impression of the real Roberts that contradicts the right-wing pundits' presentation of Roberts' image as “intellectual,” “non-controversial,” and “not ideologically motivated.”
Reproductive Rights: In 1991, Roberts argued that doctors who receive federal funding cannot talk to patients about abortion options. Roberts was Deputy Solicitor General during the case of Rust vs. Sullivan.
Roberts helped write a brief that reiterated the first Bush administration’s opposition to the Supreme Court decision of Roe vs. Wade, arguing, “We continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled.” While some TV pundits insist that this only represents the position of the White House he served, does anyone doubt that a president would hire someone who favors keeping the law as it is to help reverse it?
In 1993, Roberts argued in Bray vs. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic that protestors who blocked the entrance to reproductive health clinics did not discriminate against women. Congress later enacted the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE) to protect women and health care providers from violence and harassment.
Separation of Church and State and Free Speech: John Roberts argued that it was constitutional for a public school to sponsor prayer at its graduation ceremony in a friend of court brief filed in the 1991 case of Lee vs. Weisman. Roberts argued that students were not coerced to take part in the prayer since they had the choice of not attending their graduation ceremony. The Supreme Court rejected Robert’s argument and in a brief authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy asserted that Robert’s argument “lacks all persuasion.”
Disability Rights: In the case of Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, Roberts served as Toyota’s lead counsel and argued to limit the protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case involved a woman who asked Toyota for accommodations to do her job after being diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome. She was then fired from her job.
Minority Voting Rights: John Roberts joined the Reagan administration’s efforts to stop Congress from overturning a 1980 Supreme Court decision in Mobile vs. Bolden that weakened parts of the Voting Rights Act. Roberts supported efforts to make it harder for minorities to prove their votes had not been counted.
Environmental Protection: Roberts questioned the constitutionality of the Endangered Species Act in a dissent from the decision by the D.C. Circuit not to reconsider the ruling by a three-judge panel in the 2003 case of Rancho Viejo, LLC v. Norton. The case involved a company filing suit against the government after its construction project was stopped because the Environmental Protection Agency found it was “likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the arroyo southwestern toad.” The three-judge panel unanimously upheld the district court’s dismissal of the case.
If Roberts’ views are indeed non-controversial and mainstream, what does he have to fear from being open and honest about them?
--Contact Leo Walsh at pa-letters@politicalaffairs.net.
