Talking Points on NOW's
Opposition to John G. Roberts
for Chief Justice of the United States
September 2005

John Roberts' Nomination to be Chief Justice:

• Raising the level of scrutiny: Elevating John Roberts' nomination from Associate Justice to Chief Justice raises the stakes. As Chief Justice, he will have an even greater opportunity to move the Court and our country backward. The Chief Justice plays a key role in leading the Court, including deciding who writes certain opinions, making numerous appointments within the judicial system, and presiding, alone, over presidential impeachment hearings. If Roberts is confirmed as Chief Justice, Bush will have established right-wing leadership of the Court for another 35 or 40 years — a lifetime legacy of the Bush presidency that women and girls will have a lifetime to regret.
• The Obligation of Our Elected Officials: Each Senator, Democrat or Republicans, has an even greater obligation to do the hard work for their constituents of examining Roberts' record. They should be thoughtful and deliberate — demanding to see all relevant documents — and do more than simply cast a "rubber stamp" vote for the White House. This must not be a "rush job."

Disclosing Roberts' Record as a Political Appointee:

• Full Disclosure: Roberts now has an even greater responsibility to be forthcoming about his ideology and judicial philosophy. He must release his writings from the time he served as a Bush I political appointee in the Solicitor General's office, and answer questions about how he views the important constitutional issues of our time. Roberts must demonstrate that as Chief Justice he will protect our most fundamental rights and freedoms including the right to privacy, women's rights and civil rights.
• Hiding his work: What is Bush Administration hiding? They still refuse to turn over what are potentially the most important examples of Roberts' views on the law — documents from his tenure as the politically-appointed Principal Deputy Solicitor General in the first Bush Administration. From what we've seen, Roberts' record is appalling. How could Senators consider a person to lead the nation's highest court, for a lifetime, without knowing his record during those critical years?

Roberts on the Issues:

• Women's Rights: The more we learn about John Roberts, the firmer our conviction is that he is well outside of the legal mainstream. His confirmation as Chief Justice would be damaging to our basic rights, freedoms and legal protections, especially women's legal and economic rights and women's reproductive health and safety!
  
  The rights of women, and especially women of color, women with disabilities, lesbian, bisexual and transgender women, poor women and immigrants, hang in the balance with this nomination. Roberts is yet another white male conservative appointed to the Court who has already shown himself to be hostile to the very people who are most vulnerable to discrimination.
• Privacy and Reproductive Rights: The stakes couldn't be higher! The Supreme Court is closely divided on cases involving some of our most fundamental rights, including the right to privacy, including the rights to birth control and abortion. He referred to this basic right as the "so-called right to privacy" and questioned whether it even exists. Roberts also co-authored an amicus brief in the Supreme Court arguing that Roe v. Wade was "wrongly decided" and "should be overruled."
• Civil Rights: As a White House advisor during the Reagan Administration, Roberts wrote of "so-called fundamental rights," and called programs aimed at promoting affirmative action and comparable pay "highly objectionable;" he opposed efforts to make the Voting Rights Act more effective; and he backed prayer in public schools without regard for religious minorities. His memos on affirmative action have been mysteriously lost, so we can only imagine what he said in those, knowing he derided affirmative action protection in other documents. Putting all of this together creates a consistent pattern of beliefs and a narrow interpretation of the constitutional and other legal protections that are not consistent with mainstream beliefs.
• Clinic Violence: John Roberts advocated overturning Roe and asserted that blockades and harassment against women seeking abortions wasn't discrimination! At the Supreme Court level, Roberts' brief argued that the protesters' behavior in preventing access to abortion did not discriminate against women under the civil rights laws, even though only women can get pregnant. In Bray v. Alexandria, he absurdly argued (against NOW, which brought the case) that Operation Rescue was merely discriminating against "pregnant people," not women. He took the side of mob-type actions over women's right to receive constitutionally protected health care services.
• Equal Pay: Roberts' written views on pay equity and women's employment opportunities are appalling! He obnoxiously called paying women and men the same for equivalent work a "radical" notion" and criticized the concept of pay equity as "staggeringly pernicious." He dismissed women's differential in earnings by referring "perceived problems of gender discrimination."
• Respect for women: Roberts vividly demonstrated his contempt for women's accomplishments! When asked whether a staffer could be nominated for a Clairol award that recognized women who had changed their lives and made a contribution, he smirked: "Some might question whether encouraging homemakers to become lawyers contributes to the common good." Placing Roberts on the Court as Chief Justice certainly "does not contribute to the common good" either!
• Title IX: Roberts would severely limit Title IX, which would deny women's equal access to education and athletics. As a private lawyer, he argued that the NAACP should not be covered under Title IX, which would allow the NCAA to discriminate against women in athletics. In addition, as Deputy Solicitor General, Roberts horrifically argued that a student who was sexually assaulted by her teacher (also her coach) was not eligible to sue for financial damages.
• Narrowing the Commerce Clause: Roberts' experience on the federal bench is very limited, but during his brief tenure he has advanced an exceedingly narrow view of Congress' ability to pass laws under the Commerce Clause. This Clause is the basis for laws guarding against workplace hazards and abuse, civil rights violations, dangers to public health and safety, pollution and environmental degradation.
• Federalist Society: John Roberts' role in the Federalist Society raises serious questions. The Federalist Society is an organization whose goal is to transform the American legal system by getting extreme, right-wing conservatives in the highest levels of American politics and the judiciary system. First Roberts said he couldn't recall being a member, and the White House excoriated groups that had reported his membership. And then he shows up in their local leadership directory as a member of the steering committee! What else is he hiding?

Send, Print or this page