Below are excerpts from a press release by the ACLU in regards to Justice Roberts' nomination to the Supreme Court.
ACLU Calls for Full Examination of Roberts' Positions; Notes Influence In Troubling Reagan, Bush I Administration CasesI think everyone expects a review of Justice Roberts' qualifications why issue a press release?
The American Civil Liberties Union today expressed deep concern about some of the civil liberties positions advocated by Judge John Roberts, President Bush's choice to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court.Well I guess "Deep concerns" is a reason, but why would they have deep concerns?
While serving as principal deputy solicitor general from 1989-1993, he authored briefs calling for Roe v. Wade to be overruled, supporting graduation prayer, and seeking to criminalize flag burning as a form of political protest.I see why they are concerned. Justice Roberts' seems to have actually worked for others and Oh my, authored briefs for a client. Any lawyer who is an advocate for their clients position would automatically cause me deep concern.
"All these positions were rejected by the Supreme Court," said Steven Shapiro, the ACLU's National Legal Director. "But the Supreme Court remains closely divided on many of these questions."
As a senior Justice Department official, Roberts was in a position to help shape the government's legal positions as well as represent them.What does one's personal views have to do with interpreting the Constitution? This is one of the problems with the left in this country just because they love to base their interpretation of the constitution on what they feel vice what is real, they think that everyone has the same corrupt traits.
At a minimum, the Senate should determine the extent to which the positions taken in these briefs also reflect Roberts' personal views.
Judge John Roberts was appointed to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in May 2003. He received his undergraduate and law degrees from Harvard University and clerked for Justice Rehnquist. He served in a number of positions in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, including as principal deputy solicitor general from 1989 to 1993.This statement seems like an endorsement to me, maybe they aren't all bad. I forget though to this crowd this last paragraph uses the codewords, Rehnquist, Bush, Reagan which is code for we must prevent this appointment at all costs.
"The Supreme Court has played a pivotal role in advancing freedom," said Anthony D. Romero, ACLU Executive Director. "Without the Supreme Court, the South would still be segregated, illegal abortions would be claiming thousands of lives, the indigent would have no right to a lawyer, and lesbian and gay Americans could be imprisoned for their private sexual conduct."This is where they put up a strawman and try to scare people. Let's see if what they say has any true basis for anyone to be scared?
Without the Supreme Court...
The south would still be segregated.
So their first shot is an attempt to scare African Americans. Well it is true the south might still be segregated, but what does this have to do with Justice Roberts. Is there a single person in this country that thinks there is any chance we will ever go back to that?
Illegal abortions would be claiming thousands of lives.
The last time illegal abortions claimed over a thousand lives was around 1940. The year before Roe v Wade there were a grand total of 24 deaths from illegal abortions compared to 25 from legal abortions that year. So they start off this fear statement with a blatant lie.
What would happen if Roe v Wade was overturned? Certainly not thousands of deaths in backalley abortions. That didn't happen 40 years ago and it wouldn't happen today.
There would be some commonsense restrictions for sure but the people would decide. Soon enough first trimester abortions would be the law and things would even out. The propaganda from the left is so far off the mark and trying to scare people with what never was in the
The indigent would have no right to a lawyer.
This might be true but does anyone think that this will change ever?
Lesbian and gay Americans could be imprisoned for their private sexual conduct.
Actually this is still the law in Georgia, the Supreme Court only ruled on Texas in which their law only applied homosexuals, but in in Georgia it doesn't just apply to lesbian and gayAmericans it even applies to married men and women who commit sodomy. Do I think this is right? No, but the Supreme Court is not the legislature.
So above they attempt to scare Blacks, Women, the Poor and Homosexuals. Our Constitution allows for processess to create and change laws. The group that has this power granted to them are the Legislatures of every state and the congress of the United States.
"The stakes could not be higher," Romero added.The stakes definitely could not be higher, we have to stop the Judiciary from legislating from the bench.
The ACLU will only oppose a Supreme Court nominee on a majority vote of its 83 person national board.Let's see if the ACLU board goes completely off the deep end and votes to oppose Justice Roberts.
Wizbang has a peice on the Left's response.
Checkout the Beltway Traffic Jam