The ACLU Attempts Borking Of Judge Roberts

Everyone, well, almost everyone knows about the ACLU. What most folk don't know however is how far that they will go in attempting to block any nominee that President Bush puts up. Their most recent media release:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Media@dcaclu.org
WASHINGTON -- The American Civil Liberties Union today expressed deep concern about some of the civil liberties positions advocated by Judge John Roberts, President Bush's choice to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court.
While serving as principal deputy solicitor general from 1989-1993, he authored briefs calling for Roe v. Wade to be overruled, supporting graduation prayer, and seeking to criminalize flag burning as a form of political protest.

"All these positions were rejected by the Supreme Court," said Steven Shapiro, the ACLU's National Legal Director. "But the Supreme Court remains closely divided on many of these questions."

As a senior Justice Department official, Roberts was in a position to help shape the government's legal positions as well as represent them.
At a minimum, the Senate should determine the extent to which the positions taken in these briefs also reflect Roberts's personal views.
Judge John Roberts was appointed to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in May 2003. He received his undergraduate and law degrees from Harvard University and clerked for Justice Rehnquist. He served in a number of positions in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, including as principal deputy solicitor general from 1989 to 1993.
"The Supreme Court has played a pivotal role in advancing freedom," said Anthony D. Romero, ACLU Executive Director. "Without the Supreme Court, the South would still be segregated, illegal abortions would be claiming thousands of lives, the indigent would have no right to a lawyer, and lesbian and gay Americans could be imprisoned for their private sexual conduct."
"The stakes could not be higher," Romero added.
The ACLU will only oppose a Supreme Court nominee on a majority vote of its 83 person national board.

First, Roberts wrote briefs as an attorney, in the Solicitor Generals office. The job of the Solicitor General is to represent the President and the Administration in matters before the courts. Thus, by questioning this, in essence the ACLU is saying that the President didn't have a right to legal counsel OR that John Roberts shouldn't have done his job if he disagreed with the position of the President. OMG... can you imagine if all criminal attorneys had to follow that advice... "Don't do your legal best to defend and support your client." What happened to the legal professions stance that every person appearing before the courts has a right to effective legal council?

The ACLU wants "...the Senate ... [to] ... determine the extent to which the positions taken in these briefs also reflect Roberts's personal views." Wait a minute, what happened to "no litmus test?" What did the ACLU have to say when Justice Ruth Ginsburg refused to answer questions regarding matters that may come before the court? What do you want to bet that they were mum?

Then they make this statement:

Without the Supreme Court, the South would still be segregated, illegal abortions would be claiming thousands of lives, the indigent would have no right to a lawyer, and lesbian and gay Americans could be imprisoned for their private sexual conduct."

Of course the implication is that Judge Roberts would have opposed those issues. How do they know? But even that is not the purpose of the sentence. The purpose is to attempt to make Judge Roberts to be separate from the mainstream. Actually, I hope he is on matters of the takings clause, the 9th and 10th Amendments, the interstate commerce clause that OUGHT to be about commerce only, the late stage abortion issue etc; the liberal five in the SCOTUS need a really healthy conservative to balance their (IMHO)stupidities.

What the ACLU doesn't want is an honest and open debate on Judge Roberts merits to be voted up or down to the bench of the Supreme Court of The United states.

I hope they are ashamed of themselves. I know they probably aren't, but one can pray... or maybe not.. what was the latest SC decision on prayer on the internet?

Update: Captain Ed over at Captain's Quarters has a post up on the pro-abortion folks trying to Bork Judge Roberts by pointing out his wife being staunchly pro-life. His job, his responsibility, his beliefs are all part of the upcoming hearings to be held. His wife's? I would ask if they have no shame, but that would be a rhetorical question.

Posted by GM Roper at July 21, 2005 07:31 AM | TrackBack