« John G. Roberts: Very Smart, Very Inexperienced, Very Conservative
Main
11 Year Old Maribel Cuevas Faces Felony Rock Throwing »
July 21, 2005
More on Judge John G. Roberts
Among the various gateways you can use to ask your Senators not to confirm Judge Roberts to the Supreme Court is the Americans United for Separation of Church and State website. It is the way I chose to do it. I will also be writing to my Senators during the hearings. The idea to respond in this way came from Blog Sisters.
As I indicated in yesterday's post, I am concerned that the political price required to block this nomination will be very high and, while a long shot, fear of not being reelected should fill the hearts of the Republican Senators who are up for reelection and also vote to confirm the nomination.
Allen, George- (R - Va)
204 Russell Senate Office Building Washington Dc 20510
(202) 224-4024
Burns, Conrad- (R - Mt)
187 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington Dc 20510
(202) 224-2644
Chafee, Lincoln- (R - Ri)
141a Russell Senate Office Building Washington Dc 20510
(202) 224-2921
Dewine, Mike- (R - Oh)
140 Russell Senate Office Building Washington Dc 20510
(202) 224-2315
Ensign, John- (R - Nv)
356 Russell Senate Office Building Washington Dc 20510
(202) 224-6244
Frist, Bill- (R - Tn)
509 Hart Senate Office Building Washington Dc 20510
(202) 224-3344
Hatch, Orrin- (R - Ut)
104 Hart Senate Office Building Washington Dc 20510
(202) 224-5251
Hutchison, Kay- (R - Tx)
284 Russell Senate Office Building Washington Dc 20510
(202) 224-5922
Kyl, Jon- (R - Az)
730 Hart Senate Office Building Washington Dc 20510
(202) 224-4521
Lott, Trent- (R - Ms)
487 Russell Senate Office Building Washington Dc 20510
(202) 224-6253
Lugar, Richard- (R - In)
306 Hart Senate Office Building Washington Dc 20510
(202) 224-4814
Santorum, Rick- (R - Pa)
511 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington Dc 20510
(202) 224-6324
Snowe, Olympia- (R - Me)
154 Russell Senate Office Building Washington Dc 20510
(202) 224-5344
Talent, James- (R - Mo)
493 Russell Senate Office Building Washington Dc 20510
(202) 224-6154
Thomas, Craig- (R - Wy)
307 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington Dc 20510
(202) 224-6441
More than half of these, the likes of Lott, Frist, Santorum, Hatch and Lugar, will be impossible to move but each should get the message loud and clear and from as many people in their own state as possible. Being "lobbied" by out-of-staters will do no good and could do harm. So, if you live in any of the states with senators up for reelection in 2007, let them know that their job is in danger.
Of the hundreds of posts and opinions on Judge Roberts I found two of abnormal interest. The first was an analysis of Judge Roberts voting record by Kevin Russell on The Supreme Court Nomination Blog. Russell looked at the voting records in approximately 200 decisions made by the DC Appeals Court during Robert's short tenure. Here is what he found.
First, the most prominent feature of the data is how little anyone dissents or writes separately in the D.C. Circuit. Of the 191 decisions we reviewed, 97% were decided unanimously. This was so, even though the panels frequently consisted of both conservative and liberal members. Accordingly, one should not read too much into the relatively minor variations in the degree of agreement between Judge Roberts and various other judges on the circuit.Second, when one examines the very small number of cases in which Judge Roberts disagreed in whole or in part with one of his colleagues, no clear ideological pattern emerges.
While Judge Roberts agreed most often with some of the court's most conservative members (agreeing nearly 100% of the time with judges Ginsburg and Silberman), he agreed nearly as often with some of its most liberal members (agreeing 95% of the time with judges Rogers and Garland). The two judges with whom he disagreed the most were relatively liberal judge Edwards (disagreeing in whole or part 18% of the time) and quite conservative senior judge Williams (10%).
You can find all the gory details at The Supreme Court Nomination Blog website. With the high incidence of unanimity, it is hard to know what, if anything, one can learn from this. I am far more concerned with his right wing affiliations than his meager voting record. It is a very interesting study and one that shows just how hard it will be to deny Judge Roberts the appointment.
The Second comes form this morning's Los Angeles Times and it is more about Judge Roberts wife than about him.
A Roman Catholic like her husband, Jane Roberts has been deeply involved in the antiabortion movement. She provides her name, money and professional advice to a small Washington organization — Feminists for Life of America — that offers counseling and educational programs. The group has filed legal briefs before the high court challenging the constitutionality of abortion.A spouse's views normally are not considered relevant in weighing someone's job suitability. But abortion is likely to figure prominently in the Senate debate over John Roberts' nomination. And with his position on the issue unclear, abortion rights supporters expressed concern Wednesday that his wife's views might suggest he also embraced efforts to overturn Roe vs. Wade.
True enough, "spouse's views normally are not considered relevant." But there is a little more to it than that. As the article says,
Judge Roberts' public positions on abortion and Roe vs. Wade appear to be inconsistent.In 1990, as the principal deputy solicitor general in President George H.W. Bush's administration, Roberts wrote a legal brief for the Supreme Court in a case regarding federal funding for abortion providers. "We continue to believe that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overruled," Roberts wrote.
His brief added: "The [Supreme] Court's conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion … finds no support in the text, structure or history of the Constitution."
But during the 2003 Senate confirmation hearings on his appellate court nomination, Roberts took the position that abortion rights were no longer debatable.
"Roe vs. Wade is the settled law of the land," he told lawmakers. "There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent."
As I said yesterday, he will not directly oppose Roe; he will, insofar as there is opportunity, kill it by a series of small cuts until nothing is left of it.
Posted by Duane Smith at July 21, 2005 10:42 AM | Read more on Current Events |
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.telecomtally.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1272