Archives
7:34:00 PM EDT
Hearing Intently Watching NBC Daily News - New Orleans :(
Democrats May Crumple on John Roberts
DEMOCRATS POISED TO SUPPORT ROBERTS AND BUSH
The full scale of the devastation and government incompetence in the Katrina disaster will soon become known to America and the world - hopefully, the persons responsible for the deaths of thousands will be exposed to severe legal liability and long term imprisonment. But other important things are happening in Washington - these events may have a Katrina-like impact on the many millions of Americans who were fortunate enough to live outside the Katrina death zone. One such event is the nomination of John Roberts as Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. Senate Democrats continue their distressing tendency to meekly bow to "King George" and passively accept the ascension of a rightwing jurist to the U.S. Supreme Court. Yes, Roberts did pro bono work on a Supreme Court case that rejected the right of government to discriminate against gay persons. Yes, Roberts sided with the environmentalists in an important "takings" case. Yes, Roberts is extremely likable. But Roberts worked for the Reagan and Bush Justice Departments, where he repeatedly advanced rightwing arguments, including the scuttling of Roe vs Wade. Roberts traveled to Florida in 2000to give legal advice to the Bush team during the dispute over Florida's electoral votes. Roberts is a CONSERVATIVE who shares the values of deceased Chief Justice William Rehnquist. This is not surprising, since Roberts enthusiastically campaigned for Ronald Reagan and was a Rehnquist law clerk after he graduated from Harvard Law School.
It seems curious that the President bypassed a sitting member of the Supreme Court in making his Chief Justice nomination. Justice Scalia combines combative intellectual brilliance, conservative ideology, twenty years of Supreme Court service, and a well deserved moniker as "President Bush's favorite Supreme Court Justice". The President should have rewarded his political ally by placing Scalia in the Supreme Court Chief Justice slot. President Reagan elevated Justice Rehnquist to Chief Justice after Rehnquist had served fifteen years on the Supreme Court. Yes, John Roberts is a brilliant attorney. Yes, John Roberts has argued many cases before the Supreme Court. But the Chief Justice position should be reserved for a sitting member of the Supreme Court, if the Chief Justice seat becomes vacant. If a Justice Scalia nomination was rejected by the Senate (an unlikely possibility, considering the rightwing cohesion of Senate Republicans, and the Senate's 55-45 Republican majority), Bush could look elsewhere for a new Chief Justice. Instead, the President chose an attorney with limited federal judgeship experience (but much oral argument Supreme Court experience) to become Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
The departure of Justice O'Connor and the ascension of John Roberts will shift a closely divided Supreme Court rightward. The right to a safe and legal abortion for all pregnant girls and women in America has been greatly curbed in recent years, as restrictions have been imposed on minors, poor women, prisoners, residents of "pro life" states etc. But even this greatly truncated right to a safe and legal abortion hangs by the slenderest of threads, stung and stained by a vociferous "pro life" constituency. Roberts, a conservative Catholic whose wife belongs to an anti-abortion organization that urges the demolition of Roe vs Wade, will certainly vote to limit access to abortion services, and he may craft new legal language that allows state legislatures to decide the legality of abortion within the borders of the state. This would instantly deny legal abortion services to millions of American women. Roberts will give the "right to life" crusaders five votes on the Supreme Court. The activist reproductive rights community recognizes this threat. National Abortion Rights Action League has declared its opposition to Roberts. But many Democratic politicians don't see the same threat, or don't care. Roberts was raised in Indiana, and Indiana's two Senators have agreed to accompany him to his confirmation hearings. Indiana's U.S. Senate delegation is comprised of conservative Republican Richard Lugar and moderate Democrat Evan Bayh. Lugar undoubtedly has strong personal and political links to John Roberts, but Bayh's support for the nomination is one more shameful act of "me tooism" by the collaborationist, accommodationist, "centrist" faction of the Democratic Party. Roberts is a severe threat to women's rights - yet Senator Bayh declares his intention to support Roberts' confirmation before the Judiciary Committee hearings have even commenced.
Many "centrist" Democrats - the same kind of Democrats who supported punitive bankruptcy reform - the same kind of Democrats who supported legal immunity for the gun industry - the same kind of Democrats who supported Condelozza Rice's confirmation as Secretary of State - have privately declared their intention to support Roberts. Some sober political prognosticators speculate that 25 to 30 Democratic Senators may vote "yes", which would produce 80 to 85 votes endorsing Roberts' confirmation. When are the Democrats going to act like a true opposition party? When are the Democrats going to rise as one in opposition to the rightwing steamroller? The Roberts vote is no meaningless vote. Church/state separation hangs in the balance. The right to a legal abortion for American women, regardless of state residence, hangs in the balance. The quality of America's air and water hangs in the balance (Roberts has repeatedly represented coal companies before the Supreme Court). And yet, Democrats bow down and surrender, and kiss the President's boot.
We could say that Roberts is replacing Rehnquist, which would not be a notable ideological loss. But the identity of the second Bush nominee will determine the course of the Supreme Court for the next twenty to thirty years, which would give conservatives veto power over any substantive liberal legislation. No one should expect this President to choose a "consensus", moderate, and mainstream jurist. No, this President will choose a brilliant, personable legal scholar with the ideology of Antonin Scalia and the personality of Elmo. And this President, despite his plummeting poll numbers, has a securely Republican and conservative Senate.
Written by usapolres Blog about this entry |
Add to del.icio.us | 
digg this
-
What do you think of Roberts as one of three appellate judges hearing a case where Bush is one of the accused while at the same time talking to Bush about being promoted to a higher position? That looks like conflict of interest to me. Any lawyers out there care to respond?
9/7/05 11:00 AM