John Roberts: Sparse Record Raises Serious Concerns

[norml]

John Roberts: Sparse Record Raises Serious Concerns


Opinions and argued cases raise doubts about where Roberts stands on protection of Americans’ constitutional rights and freedoms; Sparse record requires close Senate scrutiny to determine suitability for Court

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.

Advocating Against Privacy Rights and First Amendment Protections
As Deputy Solicitor General during the first Bush administration, Roberts tried to convince the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade in a case that didn’t even directly concern that issue. The case, Rust v. Sullivan, dealt with a rule prohibiting federally funded family planning clinics from discussing abortion with patients, not the validity of Roe, which protects a women’s constitutional right to reproductive freedom. Nevertheless, Roberts’ brief proclaimed that “e continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled” and that the Court’s ruling that a woman has a fundamental right to make her own reproductive choices about abortion has “no support in the text, structure or history of the Constitution.”


snip


http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=19265