Today, President George W. Bush, nominated Judge John G. Roberts to the Supreme Court of the US (SCOTUS). This is important to everyone because of the delicate balance in which the court has existed in the past few years. One of the rights most Americans take for granted is their right to privacy. The nomination of Judge Roberts should make everyone here take note, your privacy is no longer guaranteed.
Judge Roberts has indicated his strong opposition to Roe v. Wade, noted primarily for its finding the legality of abortion, the constitutional right which Roe really did provide was privacy. Whether it be privacy for a doctor to discuss medical options to a patient, or your privacy to enjoy erotic materials in your home, Roe is the decision which provides these rights.
Taken from NOW's website, as Deputy Solicitor General, Roberts argued in a brief before the Supreme Court that "we continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled. The 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."* As Deputy Solicitor General, Roberts also filed an amicus curiae brief in support of Operation Rescue and named individuals who routinely blocked access to clinics. The brief argued that the protesters' behavior did not discriminate against women and that blockades and clinic protests were protected speech under the First Amendment. This case, Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic, spurred the Congress to enact the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act.
In addition to concerns over privacy issues, Judge Roberts has shown disregard towards issues relating to race relations in the US. While working under Presidents Reagan and Bush, Mr. Roberts supported a hard-line,
anti-civil rights policy that opposed affirmative action, would have made it nearly impossible for minorities to prove a violation of the Voting Rights Act and would have “resegregated” America’s public schools. In October of 2001, Judge Roberts filed an amicus brief in Adarand v. Mineta, supporting a challenge to federal affirmative action programs. He also argued against Title IX as applied to the NCAA in NCAA v. Smith.
It is also important to note that Judge Roberts is partisan with longstanding connections to the Republican Party and several far right legal organizations. A former law clerk for then Associate Justice Rehnquist, he held important positions in the administrations of both Ronald Reagan and the President Bush the elder, where he became Deputy Solicitor General. He is a member of both the Republican National Lawyers’ Association and the National Legal Center For The Public Interest. He serves on the Legal Advisory Council of the
latter group, which states as its mission the promotion of “free enterprise, private ownership of property, balanced use of private and public resources, limited government, and a fair and efficient judiciary,” euphemisms for hostility toward environmental and worker protections and a commitment to an ultra-conservative, anti-government legal agenda, including the confirmation of President Bush’s pro-corporate judges. In addition, Mr. Roberts states in his Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire that he “regularly participate in press briefings sponsored by the… Washington Legal Foundation,” a rigidly right-wing legal organization that litigates on behalf of corporate interests and wealthy property owners challenging environmental and other regulations.
President Bush has gone back on his promise of nominating an impartial judge.
*Brief for the Respondent at 13, Rust v. Sullivan, 500 US 173, 1991
Judge Roberts has indicated his strong opposition to Roe v. Wade, noted primarily for its finding the legality of abortion, the constitutional right which Roe really did provide was privacy. Whether it be privacy for a doctor to discuss medical options to a patient, or your privacy to enjoy erotic materials in your home, Roe is the decision which provides these rights.
Taken from NOW's website, as Deputy Solicitor General, Roberts argued in a brief before the Supreme Court that "we continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled. The 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."* As Deputy Solicitor General, Roberts also filed an amicus curiae brief in support of Operation Rescue and named individuals who routinely blocked access to clinics. The brief argued that the protesters' behavior did not discriminate against women and that blockades and clinic protests were protected speech under the First Amendment. This case, Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic, spurred the Congress to enact the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act.
In addition to concerns over privacy issues, Judge Roberts has shown disregard towards issues relating to race relations in the US. While working under Presidents Reagan and Bush, Mr. Roberts supported a hard-line,
anti-civil rights policy that opposed affirmative action, would have made it nearly impossible for minorities to prove a violation of the Voting Rights Act and would have “resegregated” America’s public schools. In October of 2001, Judge Roberts filed an amicus brief in Adarand v. Mineta, supporting a challenge to federal affirmative action programs. He also argued against Title IX as applied to the NCAA in NCAA v. Smith.
It is also important to note that Judge Roberts is partisan with longstanding connections to the Republican Party and several far right legal organizations. A former law clerk for then Associate Justice Rehnquist, he held important positions in the administrations of both Ronald Reagan and the President Bush the elder, where he became Deputy Solicitor General. He is a member of both the Republican National Lawyers’ Association and the National Legal Center For The Public Interest. He serves on the Legal Advisory Council of the
latter group, which states as its mission the promotion of “free enterprise, private ownership of property, balanced use of private and public resources, limited government, and a fair and efficient judiciary,” euphemisms for hostility toward environmental and worker protections and a commitment to an ultra-conservative, anti-government legal agenda, including the confirmation of President Bush’s pro-corporate judges. In addition, Mr. Roberts states in his Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire that he “regularly participate
President Bush has gone back on his promise of nominating an impartial judge.
*Brief for the Respondent at 13, Rust v. Sullivan, 500 US 173, 1991
