John Roberts Does Not Care About
The American People
Commentary By Adam Carlson
During the presidential campaign in 2000, I remember thinking to myself
that one of the most important and potentially disruptive issues that
no one was really talking about was the age of the justices on the Supreme
Court and the fact that chances were good that one or more of them would
either die or step down during the incumbency of whoever got elected.
If, for example, “Dubya” won, he could theoretically nominate
a rigidly conservative justice or two or three who would serve for twenty
years. I feared that if the Supreme Court ended up with a strongly conservative
bent, an important decision such as Roe vs. Wade could be overturned,
Miranda Rights could be removed, we’d have no chance of getting
away from the Patriot Act, etc. Basically, I was afraid that any changes
to the Supreme Court a conservative president would enact would drastically
change the fabric of American life and American rights.
With the appointment of John Roberts to the Supreme Court, and his subsequent
successful nomination of Chief Justice, I am afraid that we might be
moving closer to such a change. He’s only 50 years old, and from
what I can gather, appears to be in good health, so we, as a country,
may have him deciding the most important cases in the land for another
thirty years. He appears to be a fairly hard-line conservative who has
a very spotty record with regard to human rights and civil liberties.
Among other things, he has also advocated against environmental protection
for endangered species, claiming that the government is not constitutionally
responsible for the safety and well being of wildlife. I wouldn’t
be surprised if he gives strong support to “Dubya’s”
almost complete ignorance of environmental issues.
Roberts’ lack of compassion towards wildlife is of concern to
the greater American public, but not as much as his stances on more
immediately human issues of civil rights, search and seizure, and abortion.
His arguments and judicial record include critiquing and attempting
to weaken the Voting Rights Act, denying an abuse of civil rights in
a case in which a 12-year-old girl was handcuffed and arrested for eating
a French fry in a Washington, D.C. Metro station, supporting the government’s
current handling of Guantanamo Bay, supporting a police officer who
searched the trunk of a car without stating that he was looking for
evidence, and participating in the Reagan administration’s quest
to overturn Roe vs. Wade as an associate counsel to the president. In
addition to all this, Roberts, a staunch Roman Catholic, has also advocated
prayer in schools and the inclusion of religious ceremonies in public
high-school graduations.
Looking over Roberts’ record on public cases that concern the
Constitutional Rights of American citizens is more than a little disturbing.
It appears that he has been undermining civil rights and civil liberties
for the past twenty-five years, half of his life. Will this change in
the foreseeable future? I doubt it. While he may not have been overtly
outspoken about issues such as abortion, the work he has done and the
briefs his offices have produced have been clear about their agenda.
He has been very careful to keep his personal opinions out of print,
instead appearing as a strong advocate of court precedent, maintaining
that decisions such as Brown vs. Board** and Roe vs. Wade* are the law,
and all he can do is uphold the law.
I am particularly concerned about his stance on abortion. I am pro-choice
and believe that greater education about family planning or planned
pregnancy is a greater aspect of the issue than abortion itself. Roe
vs. Wade is one of the most important cases the Supreme Court has decided
in its history, and it stands as the written law of the land. Will this
change with Roberts as Chief Justice? Despite his claims that his personal
beliefs do not enter into his judicial actions, he has been quoted as
saying that he believes that not only was Roe vs. Wade wrongly decided,
but that it also should be overturned. He has also attempted to pass
legislation limiting or denying funding for federally funded family
planning services that provided abortion-related counseling. In addition
to being an opponent of minority rights and civil rights, it appears
that he is not particularly supportive of women’s rights either.
And despite all this, he is going to be in charge of the nation’s
court.
I was also a little surprised at how easily he was confirmed as Chief
Justice, even with the Republican majority of the Senate. It was a 78-22
margin, with all the dissenting votes being half of the Democrats in
the Senate. The other half of the Democrats were Senators from states
that Bush carried in the last election, some of whom are looking at
bids for re-election next year, and perhaps they are more concerned
with their positions than the rights of the people they represent. To
me, it is another indicator of the grip Bush and the Republican party
has on the country right now. It’s also another reason why I lose
sleep at night. While there was likely no way to keep Roberts’
appointment from passing, the fact that some of the Democrats didn’t
appear concerned with the well-being of the country has me worried about
the chance of getting the Republican party out of office in 2008.
I don’t know if Roberts will be radically different from William
H. Rehnquist, who was also a hard-line conservative. He was also an
opponent of Roe vs. Wade and was not initially in favor of desegregation.
Rehnquist was appointed during Nixon’s presidency and confirmed
as Chief Justice under Reagan. Given “Dubya’s” emulation
of Reagan, it strikes me as an odd parallel between the two presidents.
Does Bush II want to create a legacy similar to that of Reagan? Is appointing
a similar Chief Justice to Rehnquist another attempt to put himself
on the same level? To hard-line conservatives, this may be great, but
to the rest of us, we should all be a little uneasy. Roberts has been
ornery and spiteful to Constitutional rights since Reagan’s presidency
and is showing no signs of slowing down.
*Roe vs. Wade was the 1973 Supreme Court Case legalizing abortion
nationwide
** Brown vs. Board of Education was the 1954 Supreme Court Case ruling
that “separate was inherently unequal”
Back To Front
Page
|