Atlanta Journal Constitution:
Senate Democrats should announce they will filibuster the nomination of John Roberts for the Supreme Court unless he offers convincing assurances that he will not be a far-right conservative in the mold of Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas.
What is very troubling about Roberts is there is nothing in his record that shows any support for civil liberties and civil rights. In fact, everything that is known about him, including his nomination by a president who has described Scalia and Thomas as his model justices, suggests Roberts is very conservative and a threat to civil liberties and civil rights.
Mercury News:
Roberts would appear to be a classic establishment lawyer who would base rulings on the facts of each case, often in unexpected ways, not on his own overarching theory or predetermined outcome. But if so, why are so many religious and social conservatives, from Pat Robertson and James Dobson to Tony Perkins and Gary Bauer, profusely praising Roberts' nomination and likening him to Supreme Court activists Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia? Is it simply hyperbole to counter liberal groups' demonizing, or do they know something that the others don't?
Star Tribune:
As Yale law professor Bruce Ackerman writes in the current issue of the American Prospect, Scalia and Thomas are not conservative; they are revolutionaries who seek to blow up a century of thoughtful, evolutionary jurisprudence. For example, they reject the right to privacy that is at the heart of Roe vs. Wade. It was Justice John Marshall Harlan, a conservative Eisenhower appointee, who first expounded that right. Roberts has said that he respects the precedent of Roe. Does that mean he finds a right to privacy in the Constitution and, if so, to what does it apply?
If Roberts, known to be a brilliant lawyer with an even temperament, proves to be a conservative with a mainstream judicial philosophy, he should be confirmed. If he won't answer, if he falls into word games and other avoidances, or if he indicates he subscribes to the beliefs of Scalia, Thomas and other supporters of the so-called "Constitution in exile" -- meaning the Constitution as it was interpreted prior to the New Deal -- then he should not be confirmed. As Sen. Arlen Specter, Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said recently, the reason Robert Bork did not win confirmation wasn't politics; it was his judicial philosophy. If Roberts is simply a gentler, kinder Bork, he should be rejected. The dangers to the nation from a radicalized court -- as opposed to a conservative court -- go far beyond possible reversal of Roe vs. Wade. Surely both Republicans and Democrats can see that.
Tags: john roberts
