Posted by Jim Lindgren:
John Roberts and 100-0 Support.--
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_05_22-2005_05_28.shtml#1116979759
My co-blogger Orin is [1]floating John Roberts as someone who might be
able to get 100-0 support in the Senate. As my [2]last post indicated,
I have a more pessimistic view of whether opposition to a Bush Supreme
Court nominee could be avoided, no matter whom Bush appointed.
Roberts was nominated for the DC Circuit in 2001 and was blocked for
two years in the Senate Judiciary Committee, finally getting voted out
of committee in May 2003. His committee vote was strong (16-3), but
not unanimous. The Senate confirmation was without a roll call vote.
One has only to read the Alliance for Justice [3]reports and press
releases on Roberts to realize that, like almost any other Bush
nominee, he would face a buzzsaw if nominated to the Supreme Court.
On its website, the National Council of Jewish Women [4]lists the
following organizations as opposing Roberts for the federal judiciary
in 2003:
Alliance for Justice Americans for Democratic Action Feminist Majority
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights NARAL Pro-Choice America
National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association National
Council of Jewish Women National Organization for Women NOW Legal
Defense and Education Fund
Indeed, Roberts was blocked when the first President Bush tried to
appoint Roberts. As the Alliance for Justice [5]puts it:
President George H.W. Bush nominated Mr. Roberts to the D.C.
Circuit, but he was considered by some on the Senate Judiciary
Committee to be too extreme in his views, and his nomination
lapsed. He was nominated by President George W. Bush to the same
seat in May 2001.
Here is the opening of the [6]Alliance's Report, suggesting how
someone whom some reasonable people might view as uncontroversial can
depicted as unfit for even the DC Circuit, let alone the Supreme
Court:
John G. Roberts, nominated by President Bush to a seat on the
United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, has a record
of hostility to the rights of women and minorities. He has also
taken controversial positions in favor of weakening the separation
of church and state and limiting the role of federal courts in
protecting the environment. The Alliance for Justice opposes his
nomination to the D.C. Circuit.
Although Mr. Roberts is indisputably a very capable lawyer, that
alone does not qualify him for such a prestigious and critical
post. As a group of over 300 law professors stated in a 2001 letter
to the Senate,1a lifetime appointment to the federal bench is a
privilege that comes with great responsibility and requires much
more. Every nominee bears the burden of showing that he or she
respects and pledges to protect the progress made in the areas of
civil rights and liberties, the environment, and Congress�
constitutional role in protecting the health and safety of all
Americans. Mr. Roberts� record, particularly his record as a
political appointee, argues strongly that he would not do so.
While working under Presidents Reagan and Bush, Mr. Roberts
supported a hard-line, anti-civil rights policy that opposed
affirmative action, would have made it nearly impossible for
minorities to prove a violation of the Voting Rights Act and would
have �resegregated� America�s public schools. He also took strongly
anti-choice positions in two Supreme Court cases, one that severely
restricted the ability of poor women to gain information about
abortion services, and another that took away a key means for women
and clinics to combat anti-abortion zealots.
Finally, Mr. Roberts is being considered for lifetime tenure on a
court that is only one step below the U.S. Supreme Court and is
acknowledged to be the second most important court in the country.
His nomination must be considered in light of the special
significance of that court. Moreover, Judiciary Committee Chairman
Hatch�s insistence on scheduling three controversial Circuit Court
nominees, including Mr. Roberts, for confirmationhearings on a
single day ensured that senators had no meaningful opportunity to
question Mr. Roberts about his views on a number of critical
issues. The Alliance for Justice urges the Senate to reject his
confirmation.
This is what I was talking about in [7]my last post. The 7 Democrats
signing the deal on filibusters are in effect promising to stand up to
what will be incredible pressure from organizations like those who
opposed Roberts before, organizations such as the Leadership
Conference on Civil Rights, the Alliance for Justice, the ADA, and
NOW. Can they do it?
References
1. http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_05_22-2005_05_28.shtml#1116976148
2. http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_05_22-2005_05_28.shtml#1116976917
3.
http://www.allianceforjustice.org/research_publications/research/john_roberts_report.pdf
4.
http://www.benchmarkcampaign.org/php/circuitCourtNomineeProfile.php?Cnom=09
5. http://www.independentjudiciary.com/nominees/nominee.cfm?NomineeID=5
6.
http://www.allianceforjustice.org/research_publications/research/john_roberts_report.pdf
7. http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_05_22-2005_05_28.shtml#1116976917
_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://highsorcery.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
