{"id":1761,"date":"2005-08-03T15:27:32","date_gmt":"2005-08-03T22:27:32","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.amptoons.com\/blog\/archives\/2005\/08\/03\/could-roberts-past-statements-be-more-disturbing\/"},"modified":"2005-08-03T15:27:32","modified_gmt":"2005-08-03T22:27:32","slug":"could-roberts-past-statements-be-more-disturbing","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/?p=1761","title":{"rendered":"Could Roberts' past statements be more disturbing?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Not a day has gone by since Roberts’ nomination and I don’t<\/em> receive some “take action” or “alert” email from NARAL Pro-Choice America<\/a><\/strong>, Planned Parenthood Federation of America<\/a><\/strong>, the National Organization for Women<\/a><\/strong>, and Save Our Courts<\/a><\/strong>. The emails always have some recently discovered memo, letter, or comment made by Roberts himself concerning his opposing position on the Roe v. Wade<\/em> and Conn. v. Griswold<\/em> rulings, along with other civil rights and liberties issues. As if his close ties with violent anti-choice groups such as Operation Rescue<\/em> and him even arguing on their behalf in cases such as Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic<\/a><\/em><\/strong>, weren’t unsettling and disturbing enough. But now, some more memos (oh joy) citing that Roberts doesn’t really view the right to privacy to be fundamental for American citizens. (via NARAL Pro-Choice America<\/a><\/strong>)<\/p>\n

Today’s Washington Post reports on a memo regarding the landmark 1965 Supreme Court ruling that legalized the use of birth control by married couples under a right to privacy. According to the records, Roberts’ memo “to the attorney general on Dec. 11, 1981, summarized a lecture six years earlier by then-Solicitor General Erwin N. Griswold at Washington and Lee University, which touched on the same theme. Griswold’s lecture, Roberts said, devotes a section to the so-called ‘right to privacy,’ arguing as we have that such an amorphous right is not to be found in the Constitution. He specifically criticizes Roe v. Wade.”\u009d [WashingtonPost, 8\/3\/2005]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

And from that Washington Post article….<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

[…]Separately, new documents released by the National Archives from Roberts’s tenure as a senior adviser to the attorney general during the Reagan administration make clear that he was deeply skeptical of the court’s recognition of a citizen’s fundamental “right to privacy” — the legal concept that underpinned its historic 1973 decision upholding a right to abortion.[…]<\/p>\n

The new documents disclosed by the archive that reflect Roberts’ skeptical views regarding a “fundamental” right to privacy include a lengthy article on judicial restraint that he apparently drafted for publication in a journal of the American Bar Association under the name of then-Attorney General William French Smith, his boss.<\/p>\n

The article approvingly quoted from a dissenting opinion by Justice Hugo Black in a 1965 court decision, in which the majority held that a Connecticut law forbidding the use of contraceptives was unconstitutional. Black’s opinion, as cited in the draft, complained that the court had used “a loose, flexible, uncontrolled standard for holding laws unconstitutional.” The draft article said that “the broad range of rights which are now alleged to be ‘fundamental’ by litigants, with only the most tenuous connection the to Constitution, bears ample witness to the dangers of this doctrine.”[…]<\/p>\n

[…]A second memo, sent by Roberts to the attorney general on Dec. 11, 1981, summarized a lecture six years earlier by then- Solicitor General Erwin N. Griswold at Washington and Lee University, which touched on the same theme. Griswold’s lecture, Roberts said, “devotes a section to the so-called ‘right to privacy,’ arguing as we have that such an amorphous right is not to be found in the Constitution. He specifically criticizes Roe v. Wade.”<\/p>\n

The words “so-called” do not appear in Griswold’s lecture. But Roberts drafted a letter to Griswold, signed by Smith, saying he was cheered that Griswold made “many of the same points” that the administration had about these matters.[…]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Now with Nancy Keenan’s, President of NARAL Pro-Choice America,<\/em> own statement regarding Roberts’ view on the right to privacy, which I will agree is “extremely troubling.”<\/p>\n

“That John Roberts, President Bush’s nominee to the highest court in the nation, should refer disparagingly to our ‘so-called right to privacy’ is extremely troubling. The right to privacy is central to our American ideals of liberty and personal freedom, and it’s something most Americans cherish,”\u009d….”The more we learn about John Roberts’ judicial philosophy, the clearer it becomes that he is not the right choice for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. With each new piece of information the White House’s artfully constructed fa\u00c3\u00a7ade falls farther away, and the real John Roberts comes into clearer view “\u201c a career activist who would bring a clear ideological agenda to the Supreme Court.[…]” <\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Oh the scary, scary times in which we live. These may have been past<\/em> comments and letters made by Roberts long before he was even a judge, however, who’s to say that someone’s history doesn’t repeat itself, while the person’s identity has taken on a whole new incarnation….Supreme Court Justice Roberts<\/em>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Not a day has gone by since Roberts’ nomination and I don’t receive some “take action” or “alert” email from NARAL Pro-Choice America, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the National Organization for Women, and Save Our Courts. The emails always … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":13,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,102,27,111],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1761","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-abortion-reproductive-rights","category-conservative-zaniness-right-wingers-etc","category-elections-and-politics","category-supreme-court-issues"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1761","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/13"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1761"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1761\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1761"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1761"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1761"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}