[cross-posted at
http://njdc.org/issues/detail.php?id=468&iss=3 ]
Recently, the conventional wisdom has been that Judge Roberts is a shoo-in for confirmation for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States. But the fact remains that the Senate has a constitutional obligation to closely examine Judge Roberts' record on a range of critical issues -- including the separation of church and state and reproductive rights.
The more we learn about Judge Roberts' work and writings, the more questions are raised. And the information that has been made available so far is only the tip of the iceberg, as the White House refuses to make a vast array of information on Judge Roberts' available to the Senate -- the very Senate that is constitutionally responsible for providing advice and consent in this confirmation process. (For more on the administration's withholding of critical documents, see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/26/AR2005072601549_pf.html and http://thinkprogress.org/2005/07/26/the-roberts-papers-what-is-the-administration-hiding/ .)
Here are just a few of the questions that require thoughtful, complete answers during the coming confirmation process.
* Is John Roberts sensitive to the concerns of religious minorities? The Chicago Tribune noted Roberts' glib dismissal of the American Jewish Congress' concerns over prayer in schools: "Another note, from December 1981, shows another side of Roberts. The American Jewish Congress had written to express concern about prayer in school, and Roberts had drafted a response. He attached a note to his colleague Theodore Olsen saying, 'Is this draft response okay -- i.e., does it succeed in saying nothing at all?'"
* Does John Roberts understand that freedom from government proselytizing is a fundamental right? We now know that Roberts advocated the extreme belief that it would be constitutional for the Congress to deny Americans access to the courts to vindicate core individuals rights, including the right of parents to send their children to public school without risking that they will be subjected to prayer with which the parent disagrees vehemently. Why? Because Roberts believed that neither a woman's right to choose nor a parent's right to have their children attend public school without being subject to proselytizing is fundamental.
* Is John Roberts a thoughtful moderate? Yesterday's Washington Post reports, "In the rare instances revealed in the documents in which Roberts disagreed with his superiors on the proper legal course to take on major social issues of the day, he advocated a more conservative tack."
* Is John Roberts troubled by discrimination against women at federally funded universities? Roberts' cramped view of the ability of the federal government to fight sexism at federally funded universities under Title IX has been disavowed by mainstream Democratic and Republican legal scholars alike -- and, ultimately, was too extreme a view even for the Reagan administration.
* Does John Roberts support the bipartisan consensus in favor of racial equality in politics? Roberts fought -- unsuccessfully -- to dilute the Voting Rights Act, which current Republican Chair Ken Mehlman has termed one of "the most important laws of the 20th century" before going on to apologize to African-Americans for the Republican party's mixed record on racial issues.
How radical were Roberts' views of the Voting Rights Act, the legislation which is responsible for the integration of America's politics? Not only did his views not prevail within the very conservative Reagan administration, but they were of a piece with the attitudes that Ken Mehlman just apologized for: "By the 70s and into the 80s and 90s, the Democratic Party solidified its gains in the African American community, and we Republicans did not effectively reach out. Some Republicans gave up on winning the African American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization. I am here today as the Republican Chairman to tell you we were wrong."
* Is John Roberts willing to fight against democracy to promote the Republican party? Roberts played a far greater role in the 2000 presidential election litigation than previously known -- litigation that condoned the disenfranchisement of thousands of Jewish voters in Palm Beach and elsewhere.
These are important questions that the Senate must address before bestowing upon John Roberts a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.
If you have not done so already, please click here [ http://ga4.org/campaign/supremecourtsen ] to write your Senator today and demand answers to these key questions in the coming confirmation debate. And please take a moment to share the link to this message with five friends and family members who share our values.