Preserve the Balance
Team Supreme Blog
Romer? What is that?
Senator Hatch this morning asked John Roberts if he would describe some of the pro bono work he had done through his career and what it meant to him. As an "umpire", Judge Roberts must have loved this softball. In his answer, he listed a number of cases and public service programs, but neglected to mention—just as he had in his Senate questionnaire-- his work on the Romer case—a landmark GLBT rights case. He spoke with pride about representing an indigent criminal defendant, but not about the GLBT community. It's puzzling that Roberts refuses to talk about his work in this landmark case. He dodged an earlier question about his role from Senator Specter earlier today.
After all, his firm helped win that case before the Supreme Court ensuring the protections of the United States Constitution were enjoyed by the gay and lesbian community. Is it because the right wing, who has been pushing for Roberts confirmation before any document from his past was released, would be upset if he said he wasn't morally opposed to assisting in this case? Given their gleeful support for his nomination, it seems to me that this is why.
After all, his firm helped win that case before the Supreme Court ensuring the protections of the United States Constitution were enjoyed by the gay and lesbian community. Is it because the right wing, who has been pushing for Roberts confirmation before any document from his past was released, would be upset if he said he wasn't morally opposed to assisting in this case? Given their gleeful support for his nomination, it seems to me that this is why.
Comments
You might be right, but it would be great if we did not have to ask. Will Roberts be asked more specifically about his views toward gay rights issues? Is there any chance that HRC might be able to get a Senator to ask him that question? Or is HRC certain that Roberts would vote to reverse Lawrence and Romer, making any question pointless?
posted by Anonymous | 9/13/2005 4:44 PM | Permalink
As you may have seen from the hearings, Judge Roberts has dodged most of the questions posed to him by the committee on specific cases or issues. We have been working with Senators and their staffs to provide questions that would reveal Roberts' judicial philosophy that would inform how he might decide on GLBT issues. While you might not hear a lot about gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender issues specifically as the committee considers the nomination, underlying issues of privacy, equal protection, separation of church and state and other key legal issues will be telling about what kind of a Justice Roberts would be.
posted by Michael Cole | 9/13/2005 5:09 PM | Permalink
I really think Roberts is a dark horse on LGBT issues & the less he says that could bring on an assault from any corner, the more he will be free to be 'opened minded' on cases that come before him.
He already knows that 'one Pope at a time is enough."
He already knows that 'one Pope at a time is enough."
posted by Anonymous | 9/13/2005 7:03 PM | Permalink
On privacy, Roberts has said that he believes in the right to privacy, and that he believes it springs from the liberty clause in the 14th amendment. That's the same thing Kennedy wrote in the Lawrence opinion. I believe this is a more liberal position than Rehnquist took, meaning that a Roberts confirmation would shift the court to the left on privacy issues.
On equal protection, Roberts has said that he believes in heightened scrutiny for gender discrimination, and that he agrees with cases like Brown. Again, this beats Rehnquist.
On separation of church and state, Roberts has said that he believes the First Amendment protects nonbelievers as well as believers.
HRC came out against Roberts pre-hearing. Now that we have so much more information about him, and now that Roberts is replacing the Rehnquist slot instead of the O'Connor slot, will HRC revise its view?
On equal protection, Roberts has said that he believes in heightened scrutiny for gender discrimination, and that he agrees with cases like Brown. Again, this beats Rehnquist.
On separation of church and state, Roberts has said that he believes the First Amendment protects nonbelievers as well as believers.
HRC came out against Roberts pre-hearing. Now that we have so much more information about him, and now that Roberts is replacing the Rehnquist slot instead of the O'Connor slot, will HRC revise its view?
posted by Anonymous | 9/14/2005 8:44 AM | Permalink
HRC made the right decision in opposing Roberts -- even though he will likely be confirmed. This was made ever more clear to me last week when Roberts said he would have just as readily helped the anti-gay side in the Roemer case if they had asked him first!
posted by Anonymous | 9/19/2005 4:41 PM | Permalink
.