Many thanks to Deb Lagutaris for this - the first fact-sheet I've seen on
the nominee. We'll obviously be posting much more on him, but here's
the record. It provides a base by which to study the LA Times articles,
which I've just scanned. I'm sure other journals will be similar. Democracy
Now! is airing a broad, diverse analysis on kpfk, 90.7fm, 6&9am. And
please pay attention to the timely and, as-usual, brilliant and thoroughly
enjoyable exhibit by the CSPG, which follows.
I suspect Roberts will provide material for future ones - alas.
Ed
Subject: [SBSJ] John G. Roberts, Jr's record
Feb. 4, 2005
John G. Roberts, Jr.
D.C. Circuit Judge, Supreme Court Nominee
D.C. Circuit Judge John Roberts's record should disqualify him from
elevation to the Supreme Court. Among other things, Roberts is hostile to
women's reproductive freedom, and he has taken positions in religious
liberty and free speech cases that were detrimental to those fundamental
rights. Roberts has limited judicial experience, but even his short tenure
as a judge raises serious concerns about his ideology and judicial
philosophy.
Short biography
Roberts received his law degree from Harvard Law School, and then
clerked for Judge Henry Friendly on the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit, and for then-Associate Justice William Rehnquist.
Following his clerkships, Roberts worked in the Reagan Administration, first
as a Special Assistant to Attorney General William French Smith (August
1981-November 1982), and then as Associate Counsel to the President
(November 1982-May 1986). Roberts then entered private practice as an
associate at Hogan & Hartson, where he became a partner in 1987. He left
the firm in October 1989 to serve in the Administration of President George
H.W. Bush as the Principal Deputy Solicitor General, also called the
"political" Deputy. In this position Roberts was able personally to
influence the legal decisions and positions taken by the Administration.
Roberts left the Solicitor General's office in January 1993 and returned to
Hogan & Hartson, where he was a partner until his confirmation to the D.C.
Circuit in May 2003.
Reproductive Freedom
Roberts has a record of hostility to women's reproductive freedom and
has sought to have the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade. In 1990, for
example, Roberts, then Deputy Solicitor General, co-authored a brief for the
government in Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1991). Although Rust did not
directly concern the validity of Roe itself, Roberts nonetheless argued that
"[w]e continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be
overruled . . . [T]he Court's conclusion[] in Roe that there is a
fundamental right to an abortion . . . find[s] no support in the text,
structure, or history of the Constitution."[1]
Also as Deputy Solicitor General, Roberts co-authored an amicus curiae
brief in the Supreme Court in Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic, 506
U.S. 263 (1993), on behalf of the government in support of the radical
anti-choice group Operation Rescue and six individuals who had obstructed
access to reproductive health care clinics. Roberts's brief contended that
the protesters' conduct did not constitute discrimination against women,
"even though only women can have abortions."[2]
Religious Liberty
In 1991, as Deputy Solicitor General, Roberts co-authored an amicus
curiae brief filed by the United States in the case of Lee v. Weisman, 505
U.S. 577 (1992), in which he urged the Court to rule that it was
constitutional for a public school to sponsor prayer at its graduation
ceremonies. In a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Kennedy, the Court
rejected Roberts's argument. The majority specifically criticized the
government's argument for its erroneous First Amendment analysis. In
addition, Roberts's brief had urged the Court to jettison the test that the
Court has long-employed to determine the constitutionality of challenged
laws and practices under the Establishment Clause.
Free Speech
As Deputy Solicitor General, Roberts co-authored the government's brief
in United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990), contending that the Flag
Protection Act of 1989, which criminalized flag burning, was constitutional.
In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court majority, including Justice Scalia,
disagreed, holding that the law violated the First Amendment.
Roberts's brief had also urged the Court to reconsider a ruling that it
had handed down only the Term before, rejecting the claim that flag burning
does not enjoy the full protection of the First Amendment. This calls into
question Roberts's views of stare decisis. The Court expressly declined the
government's invitation. 496 U.S. at 315.
Federalism and "states' rights" and the environment
In Rancho Viejo, LLC v. Norton, 334 F.3d 1158 (D.C. Cir. 2003), cert.
denied, 124 S. Ct. 2061 (2004), Judge Roberts issued a troubling dissent
from the decision by the full D.C. Circuit not to reconsider the important
ruling by the three-judge panel in this case upholding the constitutionality
of the Endangered Species Act as applied to a real estate development
project in California. Roberts's dissent strongly suggested that he thought
it would be unconstitutional to apply the Endangered Species Act in this
case. The only other dissenter was Judge David Sentelle. All of the other
Republican-appointed judges on the court joined the court's Democratic
appointees in voting to deny rehearing en banc.
Individual Rights
In Hedgepeth v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth., 386 F.3d 1148 (D.C.
Cir. 2004), Judge Roberts wrote the unanimous decision for a three-judge
panel rejecting the civil rights claims brought on behalf of a 12-year-old
girl who had been handcuffed, arrested and taken away by the police for
eating a single french fry in the D.C. Metro. Among other things, Roberts's
opinion rejected the claim that the girl's equal protection rights had been
violated because, under then-D.C. law, an adult in the same situation would
only have been given a citation, while the police were required to arrest
juveniles. According to Roberts, the law requiring harsher treatment of
juveniles was rationally related to "the legitimate goal of promoting
parental awareness and involvement with children who commit delinquent
acts." 386 F.3d at 1156.
Acree v. Republic of Iraq, 370 F.3d 41 (D.C. Cir. 2004), was a suit
filed under the terrorism exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act
against the Republic of Iraq, the Iraqi Intelligence Service, and Saddam
Hussein by seventeen American soldiers who had been held as prisoners of war
and tortured by Iraq during the Gulf War. Two of the judges on the panel,
Harry Edwards and David Tatel, rejected the government's argument that the
district court did not have jurisdiction over the case. Judge Roberts,
however, would have adopted the position of the government that federal law
"deprived the courts of jurisdiction over suits against Iraq" for damages
resulting from torture and other terrorist acts. Id. at 65. The result
would have been to deprive Americans tortured in Iraq of any possible relief
in federal court.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Brief for the Respondent, Rust v. Sullivan, 1989 U.S. Briefs 1391
(1990), at 7 (LEXIS pagination).
[2] Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Petitioners,
Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic, 1990 U.S. Briefs 985 (1991), at 3
(LEXIS pagination).
***
For Immediate Release
Contact: Carol A. Wells
Center for the Study of Political Graphics
323-653-4662
www.politicalgraphics.org
Track 16 Gallery
Bergamot Station
2525 Michigan Avenue - Building C
Santa Monica, CA 90404
July 30 through August 27, 2005
Opening reception: July 30, from 6 to 9 P.M.
Regular gallery hours are Tuesday through Saturday from 11 A.M. to 6 P.M.
Dead Wrong
International Posters Against the Death Penalty
a new exhibition from the
Center for the Study of Political Graphics
Q: What does the United States have in common with Afghanistan,
China, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, and Saudia Arabia?
A: They all support the Death Penalty
Most of the world has banned capital punishment. The United States, Japan
and South Korea are the only established democracies in the world, which
still conduct executions. Capital Punishment of minors was only declared
unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in March 2005. The homicide rate
in Canada has been gradually dropping since executions were stopped. This
phenomenon has been observed in many countries that have abandoned the
death penalty. Yet the U.S. continues to punish by hanging, poison gas,
electrocution, firing squad or lethal injection.
Political posters are powerful tools for organizing opposition to the Death
Penalty. Graphics give witness to prisoners' existence, inform the public
about their status, mobilize support in their behalf, and prevent them from
being forgotten by the next generations.
The posters in Dead Wrong illustrate numerous death-penalty related issues,
including the impact of racism, poverty and unpopular political beliefs on
sentencing. Many of these posters were produced while the prisoners were on
trial or in jail, and thus convey the urgency of the issue. Some are
commemoratives, marking the deaths of prisoners later deemed innocent or
those whose guilt is still debated, including the Haymarket Martyrs, Sacco
and Vanzetti, and Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. Some are the focus of
international campaigns, such as Mumia Abu Jamal, while others are unknown
to most of us. The majority of the posters simply and eloquently focus on
Capital Punishment as uncivilized, inhumane, and unjust.
These posters remind the viewer of histories too often hidden and warn that
the judicial system frequently errs. State sanctioned murder is still
murder. Innocents are still condemned to die, and even one executed innocent
is too many. Through this and other traveling exhibitions, the Center for
the Study of Political Graphics is reclaiming the power of art to inform,
inspire, and incite to action.
Dead Wrong will be shown in conjunction with PreMeditated: Meditations on
Capital Punishment Recent Works by Malaquias Montoya.
The Center for the Study of Political Graphics (CSPG) is an educational and
research archive that collects, preserves and exhibits graphics of social
change. With more than 50,000 political posters, CSPG is the largest
collection of post World War II human rights and protest posters in the U.S.
Through traveling exhibitions, workshops and publications, CSPG is
reclaiming the power of art to inspire people to action.
The posters in Dead Wrong are from Prison Nation: Posters on the Prison
Industrial Complex an exhibition to premiere Spring 2006 at the Watts Towers
Art Center. Funded in part by the City of Los Angeles Cultural Affairs
Department.
###############################################################
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Digest: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
