Judge John Roberts does not belong on the Supreme Court bench. A few of the many ticks against him:
- He’s anti-Roe, and thus anti-privacy and anti womens’ rights.
- He’s against the Constitutionally-mandated separation of church and state.
- He’s ruled that the Endangered Species Act is fundamentally unconstitutional.
- He’s helped with the Cheney smokescreen of efforts to investigate secret energy policy hearings.
- Has ruled against the Voting Rights Act, which helps ensure that minorities get equal access to elections and polling places.
His record, as a whole, shows that he believes in “narrow interpretation” of the Constitution, thus beliving in the absolute (and often literal) interpretation of the founding laws of the U.S. – this usually means he frames his arguments as if the country were still in the 18th century.
Not to say that he’s all bad. He represented the 19 states that sued Microsoft for antitrust activities. And, contrary to what I stated just one paragraph ago, he has delivered arguments that support more liberal constitutional theory (specifically in a case where he argued that the government’s ability to seize property should be “informed by changing norms of justice” – though the full text of his ruling skewed more conservative than the current leanings of SCOTUS).
The problem: conservative “red Dems” like him. And the theocons can’t get enough of him.
Judge Roberts is currently on the D.C. Circuit court, and was appointed to his position by President Bush and installed in May 2003. He’s 50 years old – the youngest-ever nominee for SCOTUS. He could be ruling on the future of the United States for the nest 30, 40 or 50 years.
Let’s hope that the Dems put up a good fight, and that they can drag some centrist Republicans into the fold. I don’t want this guy being an influence on the law of the land for the next generation – indeed, it would be a tragic gift to the children of the 21st century.
Some Roberts info links:
Judicial Selection
Slate (scroll down for info on Roberts)
Independent Judiciary (PDF file)
Washington Post profile
Orlando Report
Abby
20 July 2005 — 15:52
Based on the Slate snap shot, I think that I would have preferred Luttig who seems better on criminal law issues. (Roberts seems to be more of a hack, like Rehnquist. Luttig, like Scalia, seems to have some principles vis a vis the 4th amendment.) My big worry about Roberts that could go under the radaris that he votef that the president had the power to detain citizens indefinitely if they’re labeled enemy combatants in the Hamdi case.