This morning, four national LGBT rights organizations [announced their opposition] to the John Roberts Supreme Court nomination. The groups are the
Human Rights Campaign, the
National Center for Lesbian Rights, the
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, and
PFLAG (Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays).
"For his entire adult life, John Roberts has been a disciple of and promoted a political and legal ideology that is antithetical to an America that embraces all, including lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people," said Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. "He has denigrated the nature and scope of the constitutional rights to privacy, equal protection and due process as well as federal government's role in confronting injustice. I have no doubt he's an accomplished lawyer and an affable dinner companion, but that doesn't make him any less a mortal danger to equal rights for gay people, reproductive freedom and affirmation [sic] action."
[bit more below the fold]
Another major LGBT advocacy group,
Lambda Legal, did not co-sign this statement. Lambda has indicated it will not take a stance on Roberts until after he has testified at confirmation hearings, scheduled to begin September 6. They have, however, published a list of
30 questions for Senators to ask Roberts about specific legal issues affecting the rights of LGBT and HIV+ Americans. [Follow that last link for a handy means of emailing your Senators to urge them to ask those questions.]
The Court will definitely hear arguments this fall in at least one LGBT-related case (FAIR v. Rumsfeld, regarding law schools' right to exclude military recruiters who violate campus non-discrimination policies). In recent years the justices have tended to deny certiorari in cases directly implicating LGBT family rights. It's quite possible, though, that with a "reliable" conservative in Sandra Day O'Connor's old seat, they would seize the opportunity to affirm LGBT adoption restrictions, so-called Defense of Marriage Acts, or the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. Lest str8 folk assume they're safe from harm along this avenue, any such decision would provide an opportunity to chip away at either substantive due process rights or the famous right to privacy.
Fundamentalist wingnuts expressed concern a few weeks ago about the news that Roberts had done some pro bono work on the pro-homo side of Romer v. Evans, a landmark gay rights case decided by the Supremes in 1996. If you read carefully, though, Roberts mostly helped in that case by participating in a moot court exercise, playing the role of Justice Scalia. Witnesses indicate he played the part pretty convincingly. Shouldn't that be a warning as much to the left as to the right?