There is an astonishing silence over the Roberts nomination. When one would think the left would be up in arms over a far right wing judge being put on the court the silence is deafening. And indeed some 'democrats' argue that we shouldnt fight at all. That this battle isnt the big one. Isnt one we can win. Will cost us too dearly.
So why should we fight Roberts?
(more below)
According to
People for the American Way Roberts is openly hostile to not only Roe vs Wade but abortion in general.
Roberts has a record of hostility to women's reproductive
freedom and has sought to have the Supreme Court overturn Roe v.
Wade. In 1990, for example, Roberts, then Deputy Solicitor
General, co-authored a brief for the government in Rust v.
Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1991). Rust concerned the so-called "gag
rule" that prohibited federally funded family planning clinics
from discussing the option of abortion with patients, and did not
directly concern the validity of Roe itself. Nonetheless,
Roberts argued that "[w]e continue to believe that Roe was
wrongly decided and should be overruled . . . [T]he Court's
conclusion[] in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an
abortion . . . find[s] no support in the text, structure, or
history of the Constitution."2
To those more concerned about religious freedom Roberts argued in Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992) that school sponsored prayer at a graduation ceremony is constitutional because they had the ability simply to not attend the graduation.
since students were free not to attend their graduations:
"A voluntary decision not to witness a civic acknowledgment of
religion . . . cannot be considered a response to coercion.
In other words if you dont like State sponsored prayer.. simply dont attend the functions where the state sponsors the prayer at.
In case his far right activism to destroy the right to privacy and separation of church and state werent worrying enough, Roberts argued
in United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990) that the State had the right to ban flag burning using the following (il)logic which even Scalia found lacking:
issued constituted
"[t]he First
Amendment does not prohibit Congress . . . from removing the
American flag as a prop available to those who seek to express
their own views by destroying it."
On the environment Roberts was one of only two dissenters in Hedgepeth v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth in which the court threw out the argument by a company that the Endangered species act was unconstitutional.
Roberts history is far deeper and more troubling than we've been led to believe. And anyone who actually looks into his background is going to end up horrified. We must fight Roberts. A far right wing activist judge who makes Scalia seem centrits. If we lose this battle, we may well no longer have the constitutional right to fight the future battles.
