| Is John Roberts an enemy of choice? |
|
25 Jul 2005
In 1991, deputy solicitor general John G. Roberts, Jr. argued in a brief before the Supreme Court that Roe v. Wade was "wrongly decided," did not have support "in the text, structure or history of the Constitution" and should therefore be overturned. Twelve years later, during confirmation hearings for a federal judgeship, he claimed that such statements were made in the context of his role as advocate for the government of the United States. Acknowledging Roe as the “settled law of the land”, he downplayed his earlier legal sentiments. On July 19th, President Bush officially revealed John Roberts as his nominee to replace retiring Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O’Connor. Although Roberts has never written a decision dealing directly with abortion in his time as a judge, these earlier recorded threats as well as his wife’s very close relationship with the anti-choice organization Feminists for Life, present a cause for great concern among pro-choice activists committed to preserving the reproductive rights of all people as the composition of the High Court shifts. In his previous role as a senior Justice Department official, Roberts was in the position not only to represent but also to influence substantially the official government stance. Therefore menacing briefs he authored at that time concerning reproductive choice and other important civil rights matters may very well reflect what we can expect from his jurisprudence as a future member of the Supreme Court of the nation. It is therefore imperative that senators determine the extent to which such previous public statements indicate the nominee’s personal legal opinions. In fact, 64% of Americans believe that Roberts ought to declare his intention toward Roe v. Wade. Some political commentators have suggested that President Bush nominated John G. Roberts to the Supreme Court because of his ambiguous record on particularly contentious issues and his ability to fly very much under the radar. Before he is confirmed as a life-long member of the highest judicial body in the land, a rigorous critical examination is necessary to cast a bright light on the potential threat that Roberts poses to our rights to reproductive choice and health. For more information: The Washington Post Houston Chronicle The Boston Globe Planned Parenthood |
