Tuesday, July 19, 2005

First Impression

After a first round of research on Roberts I have concluded the following:

At the moment I believe him a hard right wing judge who Democrats cannot allow to be confirmed. While the presence of Kennedy on the Court could maintain a 5-4 majority for sanity (thanks to camus for the line) Roberts is not a defender of equal rights, of due process, or of any degree of Federal regulation.

Tim Grieve at Salon has the lowdown.
Arguing on behalf of the government for a roll back of abortion rights, Roberts has stated that there is "no support in the text, structure or history of the Constitution" for Roe v. Wade. Roberts wrote the government's brief in Rust v. Sullivan, the 1991 case in which the Supreme Court held that government could prohibit doctors and clinics who receive federal funds from discussing abortion with their patients. In his brief, Roberts said: "We continue to believe that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overruled."

In other cases -- sometimes as an advocate for the government, sometimes as a lawyer in private practice -- Roberts argued that the Supreme Court should invalidate a federal affirmative action program; that the Constitution permits religious ceremonies at public high school graduations; and that environmental groups lacked the right to sue under the Endangered Species Act.

Furthermore he ruled that the violation of any law, no matter how absurd merits arrest. In this case ruling that a DC girl can be arrested for bringing french fries onto the subway system (I kid you not) rejecting, "the right of a minor to be free from arrest when there is probable cause, if the arrest is pursuant to a policy that precludes less intrusive enforcement options." This in spite of the Supreme Court ruling in Foucha v. Louisiana that the State must be able to demonstrate "why...the state's interest would not be vindicated by other permissible ways of dealing with patterns of criminal conduct." I ask Judge Roberts why the District of Columbia had to arrest the girl for possession of french fries on the transit system when they could have simply taken away the french fries and thrown them away or required the girl to finish them before entering the subway train.

Finally, I don't know how the debate in Washington will go over Judge Roberts as the new Associate Justice to the Supreme Court, but for me, this is a man worth opposing.


Abe said...

I disagree, from what I been hearing President Bush could have gone with someone more right wing. Waht he said on abortion was the view of Bush white House and not necessarly his own. Also in the case of the 12 year old girl he said here civil rights had not been voilated which was true, she was not mistreated. If we fight this we will lose and could end up losing the filibuster deal and end up with the nuclear option.

Abe said...

Imagine having Prsciall Owens on the Supreme Court, it could have been a lot worst.

Cwech said...

I think he could have gone with someone with a more clear record of being right wing, but my impression at the moment is that the man is a total winger. The girl's civil rights had been violated as I cited Foucha where the Court determined that if there is a less intrusive method of enforcement that would also be effective then authorities must go with the least intrusive method. Arresting someone for bringing fries onto the subway system is a blatant violation of her 4th, 5th, and 14th amendment rights.

Abe said...

Once again I diasgree, the 4th amendment has to do with illegal search ans seizure, the 5th has to do with arbitaty government action. The 14th has to do with all people born in the US are citizens and I don't see how these amendments are violated they aren't even connected with the case. It a very big stretch to make. For all we know the girl could have been beligerent, we don't know.

Cwech said...

read fouchaand quit arguing with me about it.

Abe said...

Idid read it and I disagree, but fine we just agree to disagree.