home

NARAL Opposes Judge John G. Roberts

By Jeralyn, Section John Roberts
Posted on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 05:32:46 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The pro-choice groups are already weighing in on Bush's selection of D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge John G. Roberts as a nominee for the Supreme Court. Just in from NARAL:

  • As Deputy Solicitor General, Roberts argued in a brief before the U.S. Supreme Court (in a case that did not implicate Roe v. Wade) that “[w]e continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled…. [T]he Court’s conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion… finds no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution.”

Update: The ACLU weighs in:

The American Civil Liberties Union today expressed deep concern about some of the civil liberties positions advocated by Judge John Roberts, President Bush's choice to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court.

While serving as principal deputy solicitor general from 1989-1993, he authored briefs calling for Roe v. Wade to be overruled, supporting graduation prayer, and seeking to criminalize flag burning as a form of political protest.

"All these positions were rejected by the Supreme Court," said Steven Shapiro, the ACLU's National Legal Director. "But the Supreme Court remains closely divided on many of these questions."

As a senior Justice Department official, Roberts was in a position to help shape the government's legal positions as well as represent them. At a minimum, the Senate should determine the extent to which the positions taken in these briefs also reflect Roberts's personal views.

PFAW weighs in:

Federal appeals court Judge John Roberts, nominated by President Bush to the U.S. Supreme Court, has a sparse public record; and several of his judicial opinions and argued cases raise real concerns about his suitability for the Supreme Court, said People For the American Way President Ralph G. Neas.

“It is extremely disappointing that the President did not choose a consensus nominee in the mold of Sandra Day O’Connor,” said Neas. “John Roberts’ record raises serious concerns and questions about where he stands on crucial legal and constitutional issues – it will be critical for Senators and the American people to get answers to those questions. Replacing O’Connor with someone who is not committed to upholding Americans’ rights, liberties, and legal protections would be a constitutional catastrophe.”

Roberts was a corporate law firm lawyer for most of his career; where he does have a record, said Neas, Roberts has failed to show a commitment to fundamental civil and constitutional rights, both in his role as a Deputy Solicitor General and as a judge. Neas called on all senators, regardless of political party, to take the time necessary to carefully review Roberts’ complete record and insist that Roberts openly and fully discuss his judicial philosophy on important constitutional and legal issues.

< Judge John G. Roberts is the Nominee | Senator Durbin Weighs in On Judge John G. Roberts >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    NARAL Opposes Judge John G. Roberts | 6 comments (6 topical)
    Re: NARAL Opposes Judge John G. Roberts (none / 0) (#1)
    by ras on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:24 PM EST
    [T]he Court’s conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion… finds no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution.” Yes, and it's a true statement. That's why the court at the time had to create the infamous penumbras in order to justify itself. Had they been able to base their decision on something more solid, one presumes they would have. Roe is both loved and hated, depending on one's politics. Fair enough. But the decision itself doesn't seem to rest on a very strong legal foundation, and will probably always be subject to reversal because of that. If one really wants the right to abortion to be enshrined, and truly believes this to be America's mainstream position anyway, then a const amendment would seem the way to go.

    Re: NARAL Opposes Judge John G. Roberts (none / 0) (#2)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:24 PM EST
    It is the law of the land, affirmed by the Supreme Court on grounds of constitutionality. It doesn't need to be an amendment, it has already been held, several times, to be part of others. "penumbras"!? show links where that was listed as a part of Roe v. Wade.

    Re: NARAL Opposes Judge John G. Roberts (none / 0) (#3)
    by Peter G on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:24 PM EST
    It is wrong, wrong, wrong to attribute statements in briefs filed on behalf of a client as the personal opinions of a lawyer signing the brief. In John Roberts' case, it only means that he chose to work for that adminstration and did not find it so distasteful or immoral to advocate its views as to require a resignation on principle. This is equally true of defense lawyers who were formerly prosecutors, as of corporate lawyers who were formerly criminal defense lawyers, as of judges who are former anything. Even quotations from Roberts' opinions will be of dubious usefulness, as he is presently a judge on a court which is bound by existing Supreme Court precedent, while the Supreme Court itself is much less so.

    Re: NARAL Opposes Judge John G. Roberts (none / 0) (#4)
    by ras on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:24 PM EST
    Sailor, It is the law of the land, affirmed by the Supreme Court on grounds of constitutionality. Absolutely correct, unless a future court determines otherwise. It doesn't need to be an amendment, it has already been held, several times, to be part of others. See my previous remark. "penumbras"!? show links where that was listed as a part of Roe v. Wade. I'm going from memory. Weren't the famous penumbras cited in this case, or am I losing brain cells even faster than predicted? Or both? I do think the privacy underpinnings of the decision was rooted in them, tho. Ah well...anyone else remember? In any event, there is still little q that the Roe decision is a legally shaky one - just ask John Roberts, for ex. Which is why those who want the right to abortion to be enshrined should be working to get an aemndement in place that does just that, if they really believe that's what the people want, that is.

    Re: NARAL Opposes Judge John G. Roberts (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:24 PM EST
    Peter G. is correct, as usual, about judging lawyers by their clients. However, the ACLU makes this point which warrants consideration (see update to this post above):
    As a senior Justice Department official, Roberts was in a position to help shape the government's legal positions as well as represent them. At a minimum, the Senate should determine the extent to which the positions taken in these briefs also reflect Roberts's personal views.


    Re: NARAL Opposes Judge John G. Roberts (none / 0) (#6)
    by Peter G on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:24 PM EST
    ras - the "penumbra" metaphor comes from the 1963 opinion in Griswold v Connecticut, which suggested it as one of several rationales for the holding that it violated the right of marital privacy (not explicitly denominated in the Constitution) for a state to ban the sale of contraceptives, even by prescription. I don't suppose you would actually disagree with that, would you? The locus of the right to privacy, including reproductive and other sexual choice, has since been firmly identified in the otherwise inherently undefined "liberty" which is protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments against arbitrary governmental interference, as the seven-justice majority in Roe v Wade states. As for attributing Reagan administration legal policy to a then 30-year-old (or so) Principal Deputy Solicitor General, that seems like a stretch to me. The Solicitor General has a real voice in policy, yes. The Principal Deputy, I think, is more the technical architect of legal arguments for those policies. Not that he is at all likely to have disagreed very much, I'm sure. Just that he now needs to be asked what his views are, more on legal philosophy questions than on particular "issues." If he ducks those questions (as is most likely), that tells us something also.

    NARAL Opposes Judge John G. Roberts | 6 comments (6 topical)