SAVE THE SUPREME COURT —
SAVE WOMEN'S LIVES
John G. Roberts, Jr.
Nominated to the United States Supreme Court, July 2005.
Throughout his 26-year career, John G. Roberts has consistently supported and promoted
an anti-woman, anti-civil rights, and anti-worker agenda.
REGRESSIVE AGENDA
Here's a snapshot of his regressive agenda in practice:
- As Deputy Solicitor General,
Roberts argued in a brief before the Supreme Court that: "we continue
to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should
be overruled. The 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."[1]
- Overturning Roe v. Wade was such a primary focus of the Reagan Administration
that during an oral argument in the Supreme Court a justice asked him, "Mr.
Roberts, in this case, are you asking that Roe v. Wade be overruled?"
He replied, "No your honor, the issue doesn't even come up." To
this the justice replied, "Well that hasn't prevented the Solicitor
General from taking that position in prior cases."[2]
- As Deputy Solicitor General,
Roberts filed an amicus curiae
brief in NOW's case against Operation Rescue and other violent blockaders, supporting Operation Rescue
and individuals who violently blocked access to clinics. At the Supreme
Court level, that case was called Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health
Clinic (it was NOW v. Operation Rescue at the trial and appellate
levels). 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. At most, he argued, Operation
Rescue was discriminating against pregnant people, not pregnant women.
Roberts' brief also argued that the blockades were protected speech under
the First Amendment.
- As Special Assistant to
the Attorney General during the Reagan Administration, Roberts advocated
for bills that would have stripped the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction
over abortion, busing, and school prayer, arguing that such legislation
would not "directly burden the exercise of any fundamental rights." The
Justice Department dismissed Roberts' view, declaring that the bills would
be unconstitutional.[3]
- Roberts faulted the Justice
Department for not taking a position in Pyler v. Doe, a case that
eventually decided public schools could not turn away children of illegal
immigrants. He argued that the Justice Department should have supported
"the values of judicial restraint," it would have "altered the outcome of
the case"[4]
thereby preventing countless children from attending schools.
- In Lee v. Weisman,
Roberts argued for the disintegration of separation of church and state
when he co-authored an amicus curiae brief on behalf of the government.
Roberts argued that public schools should be allowed to hold religious ceremonies
at high school graduations, but the Supreme Court disagreed, reaffirming
the line between church and state.[5]
- As special assistant to
the attorney general during the Reagan Administration, Roberts participated
in the Administrations' attack on minorities' voting rights. After
the Supreme Court held, in City of Mobile v. Bolden, that
the Voting Rights Act required racial minorities to prove intentional discrimination
in voting laws, Congress moved to amend the Act so that a plaintiff would
only have to show that a voting law had a discriminatory effect. Roberts
joined the Administration's effort to block the amendment. To the Administration's
chagrin, Congress eventually passed the amendment by an overwhelming
majority. Even Senator Strom Thurmond, a long-time opponent to civil
rights, disagreed with Roberts and voted for the amendment.
- Roberts has no discernable
position on LGBT issues, but this should not be a comfort to the LGBT community.
The legal basis for Roe v. Wade is same as the basis for cases like
Lawrence v. Texas – the right to privacy. Along with abortion rights,
the progress made for LGBT rights could erode with Roberts on the Court.
- Prior to his nomination
to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Roberts made several comments that
revealed his ideological leanings. Regarding the Rehnquist Court, which
many have characterized as the most conservative and activist Court in decades,
Roberts said, "I don't
know how you can call [the Rehnquist] [C]ourt conservative . . . ." He continued this rhetoric when asked specifically
about the 1999-2000 Supreme Court term, a very controversial time period
for the Court. Roberts viewed the decisions of that term, including decisions
that heavily limited the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Violence
Against Women Act, as reinforcing his view that, "we do not have a very
conservative Supreme Court . . . ."
- In his short time on the
bench, Roberts has already cast himself as an opponent of environmental
protection. In his dissent in Rancho
Viejo, LLC v. Norton,
a case where a large developer refused to take down a fence that was blocking
the habitat of an endangered species, Roberts' position would have effectively
limited the role of the federal government to address national environmental
issues and he strongly hinted that he believes
the Endangered Species Act is unconstitutional. Roberts' very narrow
view of federal power was essentially overruled by the Supreme Court in
Gonzales v. Raich, where even Justice
Scalia felt it went too far.
PRIVATE PRACTICE
While in private practice,
Roberts frequently argued cases before the High Court, many of which were
pro-big business, anti-government, anti-civil-rights, and anti-environment.
- Roberts served as lead counsel
for Toyota in Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams,
in which he argued to limit
the protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
The case involved a woman who was fired when she asked Toyota for accommodations
to do her job after being diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome. The court
ruled in Roberts' client's favor, saying that while the woman's condition
impaired her ability to work, it did not impair her ability to perform a
major life activity, and thus was not protected by the ADA.
- Roberts filed an amicus
brief in Adarand v. Mineta in Oct. 2001, challenging federal
affirmative action programs.
- He argued against Title IX, the equal
education law for women and girls, as applied to college athletic programs
in NCAA v. Smith. Roberts urged the Attorney General not to support
an investigation of alleged sex discrimination at the University of Richmond.
- Roberts has been a proponent
of states' rights even if it costs the safety of women and girls,
as where he opposed the landmark Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). In
a 1999 radio interview he said, "We have gotten to the point these
days where we think the only way we can show we're serious about a problem
is if we pass a federal law, whether it is VAWA or anything else. The fact
of the matter is: conditions are different in different states and state
laws can be more relevant."[6]
- In Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. Federal Communications
Commission,
Roberts successfully argued that Fox was not subject to regulations that
prevented media monopolies.
- In Bragg
v. West Virginia Coal Association, Roberts wrote an amicus curiae
brief that supported the blasting of mountain tops in order to mine coal,
an act that deposited pollutants and debris on neighboring valleys and rivers.
ROBERTS' AFFILIATIONS
- Roberts was a steering committee
member of the DC Chapter of the Federalist Society, an ultra-conservative
organization committed to returning to a pre-Civil War era of unquestioned
states' rights and rolling back legislation that has advanced women's
rights, civil rights, environmental protections and health and safety standards.
Federalist Society heroes and leaders include Supreme Court Justices Antonin
Scalia and Clarence Thomas, former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft and
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah).
- Roberts is also connected
to several staunch conservative legal organizations, including the Republican
National Lawyers' Association and the Washington Legal Foundation. Moreover,
he served on the Legal Advisory Council to the National Legal Center for
the Public Interest, a group known to be anti-government and hostile toward
environmental and worker protections.
- Furthermore, the Roberts
nomination has made conservative groups positively giddy:
- Tony Perkins, of the conservative
Family Research Council, said that President Bush "promised to nominate
someone along the lines of a Scalia or a Thomas, and that is exactly what
he has done."[7]
- Lou Sheldon of the Traditional
Values Coalition and Pat Robertson, founder of the Christian Broadcasting
Network, both agreed that President Bush had fulfilled his promise
to them and given the radical Right a candidate that they can fully support.
- Radical anti-choice
organizations are also praising the nomination. Operation Rescue, a violent group that prohibits
women from receiving full reproductive health care, praised Bush for his
nominee, saying Roberts has "strong conservative credentials with indications that he will not uphold Roe
v. Wade."[8]
EMPLOYMENT BACKGROUND
- Bush Appointee to U.S. Court
of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 2003 to present
- Private practice at law
firm of Hogan & Hartson from 1986-1989 and 1993-2003
- Former U.S. Deputy Solicitor
General under Kenneth Starr, 1989-1993
- Associate Counsel to President
Ronald Reagan, 1982-1986
- Special Assistant to U.S.
Attorney General William French Smith, 1981-1982
- Clerk for Supreme Court
Justice William H. Rehnquist, 1980-1981
- Clerk for Judge Henry J.
Friendly, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, 1979-1980
last updated 8/1/05
[1]
Brief for the Respondent at 13, Rust v. Sullivan, 500 US 173, 1991