While the discussion begins about John Roberts, and his decidedly sketchy history of arguing to overturn Roe v. Wade, conservatives seem to be latching on to the non-answers Roberts gave to the senate when he was first nominated to the United States Court of Appeals – DC District to the brief he co-authored and asserted this:
We continue to believe that [Roe v. Wade] was wrongly decided and should be overruled. As more fully explained in our briefs, filed as amicus curiae, in Hodgson v. Minnesota, 110 S. Ct. 2926 (1990); Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 109 S. Ct. 3040 (1989); Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 476 U.S. 747 (1986); and City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, 462 U.S. 416 (1983), the Court’s conclusions in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion and that government has no compelling interest in protecting prenatal human life throughout pregnancy find no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution.
When asked for clarification by the Senate, his response was one of ambiguous non-transparency that could only be seen as a non-answer:
“Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land…There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent.”
The push now seems to be one where conservatives are chastising liberals for assuming his intentions would be to support the overturning of Roe v. Wade, because his early statements were made on behalf of the first Bush Administration as they framed their arguments for the Rust v. Sullivan case in 1991. While obviously there are a great many issues that need to be looked over thoroughly with regards to this new nominee to the SCOTUS, the definitive need for some transparency with regards to his regard for women’s reproductive rights needs to be addressed before he’s given a pass to the most powerful court system in the country, if not the world.
I did a lot of digging around after the nomination was announced, and all I could find that would give indication towards what his personal beliefs would be, if we are to be charitable and disregard his earlier brief that detailed why Roe v. Wade should be overturned, and came up with a few issues that seemed of particular import with regards to his personal beliefs.
– He’s considered a devout and faithful Catholic, which tends to imply he would agree with and support the Catholic stance of anti-choice on abortion.
– His wife, Jane Sullivan Roberts, was vice-president of Feminists For Life, the notoriously anti-choice appropriators of the term ‘Feminism’ that support the banning of legalized abortions.
So what’s the bottom line here? Well, that still remains to be seen, and while as reports state John Roberts may well be a good person that is on some levels a friend to women, that he’s trustworthy to acknowledge the rights of women (and men) for reproductive autonomy and privacy in their family planning choices. So while it could have been worse, patience and transparency in the senatorial debates seem to be the only thing that will tell us by what margin.
Well, goodness knows we aren’t going to get transparency from the press, if today’s NYT article is any indication. It was a veritable love-fest.
The Democrats will do the polite protest, then roll over on Roberts. They’ve already indicated they are not willing to go too far out to preserve women’s rights. And their flipping the switch for Scalia and to a degree, Thomas, is not forgotten by this feminist.
Personal beliefs are personal beliefs. What he brings to the job, and the decision making is what ultimately matters. I do not believe that prospective appointments should be allowed to play coy.
That’s pretty much the same way I feel about it Radfem. We’re being force fed the notion that somehow being hedgy or nuetral about civil rights is a laudable quality, and that it’s rude or crossing the line to ask hard enough questions that the general populace is able to see where this man stands.
I keep hearing about all this integrity he supposedly has, but to me, integrity is part and parcel of a transparent agenda. It means you aren’t shameful of that agenda and believe in the rightness of that agenda that omission isn’t necessary to open doors.
The fact that Roberts is Catholic is not a foregone conclusion that he is anti choice. Many Jesuits are pro-choice, as are many liberal Catholics. (Massachusetts is fairly liberal and fairly Catholic.) One cannot gauge from Roberts arguing a case for a client what his personal leanings are. Of coarse he is conservative, what would anyone expect from Bush? And of coarse Bush is going to pick someone that will make it difficult for the Dems to buck. (Bush is not very smart but he is an adept politician.)
Roberts is lauded from all sides that he is very intelligent, thoughtful, and devoted to seeking the truth, I personally find that reassuring. While it would be nice to have a clear view of his personal leanings, I doubt that he will share them, (most don’t) and he will still be approved if he doesn’t. I believe in my soul that it will be all right; I have faith that like several of the past Justices he will be more independent than an idealog. To be honest it is the next nominee that I think will be the extreme. Blessings
Roberts has clearly stated that there is no right to privacy in the constitution. This position affects more than Roe. He also was on the three judge panel last week that decided that the Preznit designation of enemy combatant of anyone, anyone trumps your constitutional right to due process. Police state anyone.
But, radfem, if –hypothetically– I spent a year on the road with Earth First! and then tried to go to work for Weyerhauser, don’t you think that I should get hired anyway ? After all, getting chained to trees would have been my expression of personal morality, and Weyerhauser would just be a job. Don’t they trust me to keep my personal beliefs and my job separated in li’l Gore-esque lock-boxes ?
Fuck it. If they don’t hire me, I’m gonna’ sue their owl-hating asses. Who do they think they are, using my history to determine whether I’m fit to do an important job or not !! :p
I would put money on him being confirmed, so we need to hope that even if Roberts is personally anti-choice, he will uphold precedent. This is a bit of a stretch, considering he is under no obligation to do so as a Supreme Court justice. Even if Roe isn’t overturned, there are so many restrictions that abortion is all but impossible to get for many women.
As Atrios pointed out today, whatever he said earlier about Roe being the settled law of the land is not indicative of how he’d vote on the SCOTUS because, as an appellate court judge, he didn’t have the power, as he would as a SC justice, to overrule Roe.
alsis, lol. The Demopublicans have made their choice though. Roberts will be all fuzzy on things, and they’ll cheer and go out for martinis after the vote. The next day, the Democrats will hail themselves as the women’s party. Business as usual.
I’m definitely going to pad my resume a bit when I submit my appy to be on SCROTUS. Not that it matters, now that we’re back to the “one woman” rule, lol, but I think I should have a fair crack at it, just like everyone else.
*sniff*
I think they got part of their assertion that Roberts would overturn Roe on the basis of his challenge of the ruling in the flagburning case, Texas v Johnson.
(I researched that case for an op-ed once, then realized that I know Johnson through his work with Oct22’s LA chapter.)
Wasn’t Bork a bit coy? (my memory’s foggy on the Reagan years, are they out on DVD yet?)
Bork was the opposite of coy. He thought he was smarter than all of the Senators who would be asking him questions (and he probably was) – he also thought that his brilliant rhetoric would make it impossible for them to vote against him. BZZZZZ. Dumbass.
Ginsburg was coy.
Coy is basically the smart way to handle a Senate confirmation. Just decline to answer; they don’t have any power to compel the answer, and voting against someone because they say “gosh, it would be inappropriate for me to prejudge a case like that” is politically a nonstarter.