Preserve the Balance
Team Supreme Blog
The Endless Fields of Indiana
The first day of the Roberts hearings did not yield any big surprises. For instance, John Roberts delivered an eloquent opening statement containing nothing more provocative than a reminiscence about the "endless fields" of his native Indiana. He said very little at all about what he thinks. And that, dear readers, is a glimpse of what you can expect from this week's hearings.
His supporters and detractors, on the other hand, showed their own true colors and, by doing so, gave us a clue about what they are looking for in a justice.
Take Senator John Cornyn (R-TX), whom we know so well from his championing the discriminatory "Federal Marriage Amendment." At the Roberts hearing, Cornyn was singing the same old anti-gay song we've grown accustomed to hearing for him. For instance, he criticized the Court for overruling laws that "the people" have enacted, saying that it is too far removed from "average Americans" when it makes his decisions. He listed a number of judicial outrages in support of his claim. Among them Lawrence v. Texas, which struck his own state's criminal sodomy (along with 12 others). Cornyn probably thought he was scoring political points by claiming that Lawrence led to the Massachusetts decision recognizing marriage equality for same-sex couples.
The question is, why did Cornyn bring up Lawrence and marriage equality in the hearing on John Roberts, whose nomination he supports? Apparently Cornyn thinks that GLBT rights are on the line here – and he's not alone.
Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) – who also wants to write discrimination against GLBT people into the Constitution – accused the Court of "inventing" constitutional rights and accused federal courts of re-defining the definition of marriage. As a particularly charming note, Brownback paid homage to Roberts' own brief arguing that Roe v. Wade be overruled, writing as Roberts did that the decisions to which he objects "find no support in the text, the structure or the history of the Constitution." Plagiarism is the highest form of flattery, so we imagine that Roberts is pleased to have been quoted by the Senator.
Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) also cautioned against allowing the Court to rule on the definition of marriage.
This was not an FMA hearing, but a hearing on John Roberts' nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States. So my question for those senators – who seem more likely than Roberts himself to answer – is: what does this nomination have to do with marriage? And is the appointment of John G. Roberts, Jr. to the Supreme Court consistent with your plan to exclude GLBT Americans from constitutional protection? If not, what on Earth are you talking about?
As usual, it was nearly impossible to understand what Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) was talking about. He stated that "America is an idea; it's not competing ideologies. It's an idea that has proven tremendously successful and, when we reduce it to that of competing ideologies, we make it less than what it is." Hmmmm ... competing ideologies. Does he mean, for instance, religious pluralism and tolerance, which is written into the First Amendment? Or maybe freedom of speech and to petition the government, which are in that same pesky part of our Constitution? Does he mean ideologies that differ from his-scary to contemplate, as this is the man who has approved of the death penalty for abortion providers. And again I have to ask – what does the nomination of John G. Roberts, Jr. to the Supreme Court do to further Coburn's goal of stamping out "competing ideologies?"
On the other hand, Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-PA) previewed that he will ask Judge Roberts about his views on the constitutional right to privacy. Because that right is so critical to GLBT equality, we will be paying close attention to Senator Specter's questions and to Judge Roberts' answers.
Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) was also true to form, reminding all assembled that this nomination is about civil rights, and that many people in this country – including the GLBT community – still face discrimination. He said that even "Even in this new century, some Americans are... denied hope because they are gay."
Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) indicated that when Roberts met with him prior to the hearings, Roberts indicated that there is a right to privacy "that extends to the bedroom." For supporters of the Lawrence decision, that is good news – if it indeed reflects Roberts' legal opinion, as opposed to an accurate recital of current law. Senator Schumer said that he intends to ask Roberts what view he would take once, as a Supreme Court justice, he was no longer bound to follow settled Supreme Court precedent. We'll stay tuned for the answer to that, too.
As of today, we don't know more about John Roberts than we did before the hearings began. We know that the most anti-GLBT Senators don't want the courts to promote GLBT rights, and we know that they support Roberts' nomination. We know that at least some Senators are looking out for the community, and that HRC's advocacy on this topic is finding a voice in this important process. Mysteries still remain, however, and getting answers from this hearing could be as challenging as finding a needle in a haystack – or, more topically, in the "endless fields" of Indiana. Stay tuned.
His supporters and detractors, on the other hand, showed their own true colors and, by doing so, gave us a clue about what they are looking for in a justice.
Take Senator John Cornyn (R-TX), whom we know so well from his championing the discriminatory "Federal Marriage Amendment." At the Roberts hearing, Cornyn was singing the same old anti-gay song we've grown accustomed to hearing for him. For instance, he criticized the Court for overruling laws that "the people" have enacted, saying that it is too far removed from "average Americans" when it makes his decisions. He listed a number of judicial outrages in support of his claim. Among them Lawrence v. Texas, which struck his own state's criminal sodomy (along with 12 others). Cornyn probably thought he was scoring political points by claiming that Lawrence led to the Massachusetts decision recognizing marriage equality for same-sex couples.
The question is, why did Cornyn bring up Lawrence and marriage equality in the hearing on John Roberts, whose nomination he supports? Apparently Cornyn thinks that GLBT rights are on the line here – and he's not alone.
Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) – who also wants to write discrimination against GLBT people into the Constitution – accused the Court of "inventing" constitutional rights and accused federal courts of re-defining the definition of marriage. As a particularly charming note, Brownback paid homage to Roberts' own brief arguing that Roe v. Wade be overruled, writing as Roberts did that the decisions to which he objects "find no support in the text, the structure or the history of the Constitution." Plagiarism is the highest form of flattery, so we imagine that Roberts is pleased to have been quoted by the Senator.
Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) also cautioned against allowing the Court to rule on the definition of marriage.
This was not an FMA hearing, but a hearing on John Roberts' nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States. So my question for those senators – who seem more likely than Roberts himself to answer – is: what does this nomination have to do with marriage? And is the appointment of John G. Roberts, Jr. to the Supreme Court consistent with your plan to exclude GLBT Americans from constitutional protection? If not, what on Earth are you talking about?
As usual, it was nearly impossible to understand what Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) was talking about. He stated that "America is an idea; it's not competing ideologies. It's an idea that has proven tremendously successful and, when we reduce it to that of competing ideologies, we make it less than what it is." Hmmmm ... competing ideologies. Does he mean, for instance, religious pluralism and tolerance, which is written into the First Amendment? Or maybe freedom of speech and to petition the government, which are in that same pesky part of our Constitution? Does he mean ideologies that differ from his-scary to contemplate, as this is the man who has approved of the death penalty for abortion providers. And again I have to ask – what does the nomination of John G. Roberts, Jr. to the Supreme Court do to further Coburn's goal of stamping out "competing ideologies?"
On the other hand, Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-PA) previewed that he will ask Judge Roberts about his views on the constitutional right to privacy. Because that right is so critical to GLBT equality, we will be paying close attention to Senator Specter's questions and to Judge Roberts' answers.
Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) was also true to form, reminding all assembled that this nomination is about civil rights, and that many people in this country – including the GLBT community – still face discrimination. He said that even "Even in this new century, some Americans are... denied hope because they are gay."
Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) indicated that when Roberts met with him prior to the hearings, Roberts indicated that there is a right to privacy "that extends to the bedroom." For supporters of the Lawrence decision, that is good news – if it indeed reflects Roberts' legal opinion, as opposed to an accurate recital of current law. Senator Schumer said that he intends to ask Roberts what view he would take once, as a Supreme Court justice, he was no longer bound to follow settled Supreme Court precedent. We'll stay tuned for the answer to that, too.
As of today, we don't know more about John Roberts than we did before the hearings began. We know that the most anti-GLBT Senators don't want the courts to promote GLBT rights, and we know that they support Roberts' nomination. We know that at least some Senators are looking out for the community, and that HRC's advocacy on this topic is finding a voice in this important process. Mysteries still remain, however, and getting answers from this hearing could be as challenging as finding a needle in a haystack – or, more topically, in the "endless fields" of Indiana. Stay tuned.
Comments
.