|
|
||
|
|
SUPREME INJUSTICE *
With Only 2 Years Experience, JOHN
ROBERTS
Is a Dangerous & Radical Nominee for
the U.S. Supreme Court
By Robert E. Martin
In the past weeks, Republicans and Democrats have called on President Bush to nominate a moderate for the Supreme Court-someone who would honor the legacy of independent Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
But last week, President Bush nominated
Judge John Roberts, a far-right lawyer and corporate lobbyist, to
fill her post on the Supreme Court.
There are many reasons this nomination
should not be approved, however the nearly non-existent media coverage
on the true nature of Robert's judicial philosophy is equally as
frightening as the lack of coverage that went into the gross
malfunctions of electronic voting machines that tipped the election for
Bush in 2004.
Here is a brief summary of Roberts record
while on the appellate bench. He opposed clean air rules and worked to
help coal companies strip-mine mountaintops. He worked with Ken Starr
(yes, that Ken Starr), and tried to keep Congress from defending the
Voting Rights Act. He wrote that Roe v. Wade should be
"overruled," and as a lawyer Roberts argued (and won) the case that
stopped some doctors from even discussing abortion.
This is one of the most important
domestic fights of President Bush's career. Yet the fact is, Americans
overwhelmingly want a moderate judge, not a right-wing lawyer and
corporate lobbyist to sit on our nation's highest bench.
To hear the mainstream media talk of
Roberts as a moderate is not only laughable but also disgusting. The
misinformation coming out of the Bush Administration on Robert's record
is equal to the misinformation that involved us in the War in Iraq.
For starters, John Roberts has
little experience as a judge - he was only appointed in 2003.
However, he has a wealth of experience as a corporate lobbyist and
lawyer, consistently favoring wealthy corporations over regular
Americans.
Here is a list of the things that make
Roberts the wrong pick for the Supreme Court:
* Environmental Protection:
Roberts appears to want to limit the scope of the Endangered Species
Act, and in papers he wrote while in law school at Harvard he
supported far-right legal theories about 'takings' which would
make it almost impossible for the government to enforce most
environmental legislation. This is immensely important for Michigan
seeing as our illustrious State Legislature, under the push of Mike
Goschka, is attempting to draft new 'facilities' legislation
that would in essence strip the DEQ of any authority to protect
the public from known pollutants.
* Civil Rights: Roberts worked
long and hard to keep Congress from defending portions of the Voting
Rights Act. This is especially significant for voters defrauded in
Florida and Congress during the last two Presidential elections.
* Human Rights: As an appeals
court judge, Roberts ruled that the Geneva Convention does not
apply to some prisoners of war, in essence opening the door for
fostering deplorable conditions and lack of oversight that led to the
atrocities at Abu Gharib.
* Religious Freedom: Roberts
argued as an attorney that schools should be able to impose religious
speech on attendees, despite the fact that public tax dollars support
these schools and our Constitution has long held that while everybody
has the right to exercise their freedom of religious belief, it is a
violation of the Separation Between Church & State to use public tax
dollars to foster secular purposes.
Under Bush I, he co-authored a
friend-of-the-court brief arguing that public high school graduation
programs could include religious ceremonies. The Supreme Court disagreed
by a vote of 5-4 (Lee v. Weisman, 1992).
* Women's' Rights: Roberts wrote,
"Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overruled." He also
weighed in on behalf of Operation Rescue, a violent anti-abortion
group in a federal case.
* Criminal Law: Roberts joined a
unanimous opinion ruling that a police officer who searched the trunk of
a car without saying that he was looking for evidence of a crime (the
standard for constitutionality) still conducted the search legally,
because there was a reasonable basis to think contraband was in the
trunk, regardless of whether the officer was thinking in those terms. (U.S.
v. Brown, 2004)
* Habeas Corpus: Roberts joined a
unanimous opinion denying the claim of a prisoner who argued that by
tightening parole rules in the middle of his sentence, the government
subjected him to an unconstitutional after-the-fact punishment. The
panel reversed its decision after a Supreme Court ruling directly
contradicted it. (Fletcher v. District of Columbia, 2004)
President Bush could have chosen many
fair-minded and independent jurists to replace Sandra Day O'Connor.
Instead, he has chosen a corporate partisan loved by Bush's right-wing
base that is out of step with the rest of the country.
Many who know Roberts say he, unlike
Souter, is a reliable conservative who can be counted on to undermine if
not immediately overturn liberal landmarks like abortion rights and
affirmative action.
Indicators of his true stripes cited by
friends include: clerking for Rehnquist, laboring in the Ronald Reagan
White House counsel's office and at the Justice Department into the Bush
years, working with Kenneth Starr among others, and even his lunchtime
conversations at Hogan & Hartson. "He is as conservative as you can
get," one friend puts it.
Each of us must do our duty to voice
opposition to our Senators on this reckless and dangerous appointment.
|
|
|
|
||
