JUDGE ROBERTS IS A JUDICIAL HOTTIE!
The media describes Supreme Court nominee John Roberts as "cute" and "sexy" and a "dashing ... judicial hottie." The Daily Show, usually reliable for criticizing the press, even calls him "Judge Cutie." Frankly, I think he looks more like a creepy neighbor that molests your poodle when you leave for vacation.
But why is the media focusing more on his handsome face and his polite personality, instead of his controversial views? And why is anybody pretending not to know where Roberts stands on the ideological spectrum?
Apparently, the press is waiting until after the hearings. Many have noted, including commenters to this post, that his work as a lawyer in the Justice Department & White House, as well as his organizational memberships, doesn't necessarily tell us about his own personal views.
But his individual, non-"client"-mandated opinions are out there to analyze in the form of thousands of released pages of his individual work product. Today's NY Times analyzed his internal memos as follows:
"On almost every issue he dealt with where there were basically two sides, one more conservative than the other, the documents ... show that Judge Roberts ... advocated the more conservative course. Sometimes, he took positions even more conservative than those of his prominent superiors. He favored less government enforcement of civil rights laws rather than more. He criticized court decisions that required a thick wall between church and state. He took the side of prosecutors over criminal defendants. He maintained that the role of the courts should be limited and the president's powers enhanced."He also wrote that affirmative action programs were bound to fail because they required "the recruiting of inadequately prepared candidates."
These aren't positions he took on behalf of the US government. Rather, these were his own opinions that he advocated to his superiors.
Furthermore, while his wife's opinions may be different from his, I find it illuminating that Roberts' wife was the board of directors for the anti-abortion group Feminists for Life of America from 1995-1999 and still provides pro bono legal counsel for them. This group has filed multiple briefs challenging the constitutionality of abortion. If you believed in reproductive freedom, would you marry someone who is working to ban abortions? Ok, but what if she wasn't that hot?
Those on the left have been comforting themselves with his previous statement: "There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying [Roe v. Wade]."
But Roberts said this when he was being considered for the federal court of appeals! A federal appellate judge is required to apply precedent. As a DC Circuit judge, he has no power or authority to overturn SCOTUS opinions like Roe v. Wade. On the other hand, as a Supreme Court Justice, he would be sitting in the only court in the land that has the authority to overturn SCOTUS precedent.
Even if he pinky-promises to apply Roe v. Wade as a Supreme Court Justice, his commitment doesn't stop him from weakening or chipping away at it.
Indeed, all the available evidence suggests that Roberts would gladly uphold anti-abortion laws.
Also, why is everybody pretending that his membership in the Federalist Society doesn't matter? While federalism as a philosophy may reflect different ideologies, the Federalist Society itself has taken extremely conservative positions, most obviously evidenced by its vehement opposition to abortion.
The Post reports that: "Many key policymakers in the Bush administration are acknowledged current or former members. ... In conservative circles, membership in or association with the society has become a badge of ideological and political reliability."
Most revealingly, Roberts declined Monday to say why he was listed in a steering committee of the Federalist Society and he allegedly has no recollection of belonging to the conservative group. Whatever. If leadership or membership in the Federalist Society doesn't suggest a political bent, then why is Roberts and the White House trying to hide it?
Do you think the GOP wouldn't care if a Democratic nominee were an ACLU member?
Finally, why hasn't a single senator indicated his or her initial opposition to Roberts? Even if they only examine positions he's taken in the solicitor general's office, he was nonetheless the individual who drafted the White House's arguments for overturning Roe v. Wade and allowing prayer in public schools.
It seems principled for a Senator to oppose the nomination of a Supreme Court candidate who has advocated reversing decades of that Court's long-standing reproductive and church/state laws ... even if the hearings haven't begun.
Get a spine, Democrats! Don't be swayed by his judicial hotness!
<< Home