Tuesday, July 19, 2005

Captain's Quarters Has the Latest on the President's Nomination to SCOTUS

Get it here. It's John Roberts Observe the Captain's enthusiasm:
If true, this is great news. More later as it develops.

UPDATE: People For the American Way won't share my enthusiasm:

"In the short time since he was confirmed by the Senate in May 2003, Judge Roberts has issued troubling dissents from decisions by the full D.C. Circuit not to reconsider two important rulings. These included a decision upholding the constitutionality of the Endangered Species Act as applied in a California case and a ruling against Bush Administration efforts to keep secret the records concerning Vice President Cheney's energy task force."

Hey, this might be a two-fer: a conservative justice and a member of the CheneyChimpyMcHalliburtEnron conspiracy!
He's had limited experience on the court apparently--only two years on the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. However, Like Judge Clement, Reasonable people dislike him. When they start foaming at the mouth, it's usually because the judges they scorn act according to the principle of the law rather than the divine right of blackrobes. Sad, really, that they depend on lifetime appointments to carry forward their Agenda. Oligarchial, in a way only a lawyer could love. Ah, but I digress.

Jill Stanek likes the nominee because NARAL hates him:
If Roberts is confirmed to a lifetime appointment, there is little doubt that he will work to overturn Roe v. Wade. As Deputy Solicitor General under the first President Bush, he argued to the Supreme Court that "Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled…."
I knew there was a reason I liked him. Prolife blogs has another excellent roundup of views. Many appear ecstatic. There's good reason, if this Reasonable account from the Alliance for Justice is true:
In two cases, Roberts took positions hostile to women’s reproductive rights. He was a co-author of the government’s brief in Rust v. Sullivan,10 the case in which the Supreme Court upheld newly revised Title X regulations that prohibited U.S. family planning programs receiving federal aid from giving any abortion-related counseling or other services. The provision barred such clinics not only from providing abortions, but also from “counseling clients about abortion” or even “referring them to facilities that provide abortions.”11 Roberts’ brief argued that the regulation gagging the government-financed programs was necessary to fulfill Congress’ intent not to fund abortions through these programs, despite the fact that several members of Congress, including sponsors of the amendment dealing with abortion, disavowed this position and that the Department of Health and Human Services’ had not previously interpreted the provision in such a rigid and restrictive manner.12 Moreover, Roberts argued, even though the case did not implicate Roe v. Wade, that “[w]e 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.”13 In a second abortion-related case, Roberts co-authored the government’s amicus brief in a private suit brought against Operation Rescue by an abortion clinic it had targeted.14 The brief argued that Operation Rescue was not engaged in a conspiracy to deprive women of equal protection. Roberts took this position in spite of Operation Rescue’s admission that its goal was to prevent women from obtaining abortions and to shut down the clinic during its protests. Although the government’s brief acknowledged that only women could become pregnant, it argued that conspiring to prevent people from seeking constitutionally-protected abortions did not constitute gender discrimination. It asserted that, at worst, Operation Rescue was discriminating against pregnant people, not women. The brief in Bray also took the additional step of pointing out that the Supreme Court had not previously decided whether women were protected from private conspiracies to violate their equal protection rights, under the relevant civil rights statute,and urged the Court not to reach a decision on this question, rather than arguing that the Court should definitively state that women should be afforded protection by the statute, as was within the Court’s power in this case. The Supreme Court accepted Roberts’ argument in a 5-1-3 decision, with Justices O’Connor, Stevens, and Blackmun dissenting.
Now, I'm no fan of Operation Rescue. It's blunt tactics did nothing to change the culture of Absolute Individualism that allows abortion to continue. In fact, OR hardened the American public against prolife activists because it's blunders made perfect pro-abortion promotion film. However, Judge Roberts demonstrates legal Guiliones of steel in his Amicus brief. I tip my hat to him! As to his view on Roe v. Wade, he speaks the truth. The Roe v. Wade decision was pulled whole cloth out of a smoke-and-mirrors decsion that even pro-abort advocates do not support!

That's one reason in particular that I like him. He understands the importance of morality and the Rule of Law. He finds fault with the legal reasoning behind the controversial decision, and he roots his criticism in the Constitution. He's not implementing his own perspective on right and wrong apart from consideration of the Constitution and the law. This is the essence of a great Justice. This is what our society depends on if it's to maintain any trust in the judiciary. I'm thrilled that he's prolife. I'm ecstatic that he's prolife and a servant of the law.