
President George
W. Bush tilted young and conservative with Judge John G.
Roberts, using his first opportunity to fill a Supreme
Court vacancy with a 50-year-old jurist who could
leave an indelible right-leaning imprint on the
nation's judiciary.
With Republicans controlling the White House and
the Senate, the president sought to reward his
conservative supporters with a Supreme Court nominee
positioned to the right of the political center. The only
question is, How far to the right could he go? The answer,
it appears, is far enough to please his hard-line
conservative base, but not much further.
Gay rights groups are wary of Roberts.
"While we are continuing our review of Judge
Roberts, we already know that we have reasons for
serious concern," said Kevin Cathcart, executive
director of Lambda Legal. "There are a number of issues
that are important in determining whether a nominee will
respect the rights of all Americans. Judge Roberts's
track record on reproductive freedom, privacy, and
federalism (respect for Congress's power to enact
important statutes like civil rights laws) merits particular scrutiny."
Added Matt Foreman, executive director of the
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force: "We especially
call upon our allies in the Senate to determine
whether Judge Roberts subscribes to the holdings of Romer
v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas, among other
cases, and will affirm that the civil rights and
privacy rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
transgender Americans are protected by the Constitution."
Democrats acknowledged privately that Roberts's
thin record does not lend itself easily to attack,
though they are troubled particularly about his views
on abortion. There will be a fight, they predicted, but it
will probably not be epic. Senate minority leader
Harry Reid, a Democrat of Nevada, did not sound like a
man throwing down the gauntlet when he said, "The
president has chosen someone with suitable legal
credentials, but that is not the end of our inquiry."
Even the criticism of special interest groups
sounded halfhearted. "John Roberts's record raises
serious concerns as well as questions about where he
stands on crucial legal and constitutional issues,"
said Ralph Neas, president of the liberal People for the
American Way. He expressed disappointment in the pick
but did not call on Democrats to defeat it.
Roberts would replace Justice Sandra Day
O'Connor, an appointee of former president Ronald
Reagan who often provided the deciding vote in split
decisions. Conservative leaders who helped elect Bush made
it clear this was payback time: They wanted a nominee
with a long and clear record of social conservatism
who could tip the court to the right on abortion, gay
rights, prayer in schools, and other hot-button issues.
They got what they wanted—to a point.
Conservative leaders said they would have been
happier with Bush's short-list candidates who have
longer and clearer records of conservatism, such as
Judge J. Michael Luttig of the fourth U.S. court of
appeals in Richmond, Va., and Judge Janice Rogers Brown of
the U.S. appeals court in Washington. But they felt
they had narrowly avoided disaster after rumors spread
through Washington that Bush had selected Judge Edith
Clement, a federal appeals court judge who is considered
more moderate than Roberts.
On the other side of the partisan divide,
Democrats were braced to fight tooth and nail against
Luttig or Brown. The party's private research memo on
Clement grudgingly acknowledged that "it is difficult to
discern a strict hard-right ideology" in her.
Abortion rights groups have maintained that
Roberts tried during his days as a lawyer in the first
Bush administration to overturn Roe v. Wade. Pressed
in 2003 for his personal views on the matter, Roberts
said the landmark court decision legalizing abortion
"is the settled law of the land." At age 50, he could
reshape the court for a generation or more.
There are four death penalty cases for the fall
term, and O'Connor was often the key swing vote in
such decisions. On abortion, she has been the deciding
vote in striking down laws that don't have an exception for
a woman's health. (Advocate.com, Ron Fournier, AP)
These comments are reproduced as written by visitors to this Web site. They have not been edited for content, grammar, or spelling. The viewpoints appearing here are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or views of advocate.com, The Advocate, or its affiliates.
Be the first to comment on this story.
If you would like to submit a comment for posting, please fill out the form above.
All comments submitted via this form are subject to posting or publication. (To send a private letter to an Advocate editor or writer, please use the e-mail button at the top of the page, or use snail mail.) If you would like your comment considered for publication in The Advocate magazine, please include your full name, your city of residence, and a phone number where you can be reached during business hours so that we can confirm your identity. Your e-mail address and telephone number are strictly confidential and will not be shared or used for any purpose other than to contact you about your comment.
See the Contact page for sending comments for reasons other than responding to Advocate editorial and news stories.
Please note that comments sent by fax or snail mail are unlikely to be posted, although they will be considered for publication along with all letters received via e-mail or via this Web page. Comments that chiefly concern Advocate.com content will be considered for posting only on the Web site. The Advocate reserves the right to edit submitted comments for grammar, spelling, obscenities, or libel; we will, however, do our best to preserve the original comment's style and intent. Comments considered for publication in The Advocate magazine may also be edited for length.