[purpleland]

ACLU press release:

---

ACLU Calls for Full Examination of Roberts’ Positions; Notes Influence In Troubling Reagan, Bush I Administration Cases

July 19, 2005

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.

---

[AngelesCrestHighway]

NARAL, the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League......Sounds impressive....Not!

[hosepipe]

Roberts just called the U.S. a democracy..
A Supreme Court Judge that thinks the U.S. is democracy..
That settles it,, Hes a RINO.. and a dumb RINO at that..
Not only that, Bush's been out'ed..

[FReethesheeples]

One can hope!

[Redleg Duke]

Talk about the left's SICs (Single Issue Voters)! This is gonna set new records for hysteria and hyperbole! :-)

[goldstategop]

Either way we win. If the Democrats want to self-destruct over a single issue, well, we'd be delighted to watch them hound Roberts over abortion. Quite frankly, its not an issue most Americans are riveted over. There's a strong case to be made Roe is bad constitutional law. But don't look for the close minded Lefties that hold abortion on demand to be the liberal sacrament to reconsider the merits of a 30 year old plus ruling.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[over3Owithabrain]

I assume since NARAL loves their liberal SCOTUS judges, they are AGAINST a woman's right to choose where she lives (KELO). And AGAINST female babies in the womb "deciding" to survive.

[Riptides]

NARAL = Baby killers.
How any of you can condone killing innocent babies and sleep at night is beyond me. Obviously, you have no conscience.

[neutrality]

Amusing, but NARAL doesnt know anymore about his intentions than we do

[BaBaStooey]

Doesn't anyone recall that Clinton appointed Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1993 to replace John F. Kennedy-appointed Justice Byron White, a conservative who dissented from Roe v. Wade? (In fact, Roe v. Wade was 7-2 in favor of the pro-aborts, Rehinquist and White were the two dissenters).

In 1991, SCOTUS heard an abortion-parental-notification case. The vote was 5-4. Dissenters were Rehinquist, Scalia, Thomas, and White. (If I recall correctly, the five who struck down the parental notification law were O'Connor, Kennedy, Stevens, Brennan, and Souter.)

Clinton appointed Ginsburg to replace White, and she breezed through confirmation. He then nominated Breyer to replace Brennan and what we have currently is a 6-3 pro-abortion majority on the court.

Nominating Roberts would reverse the move Clinton made when Ginsburg replaced White. Scalia and Thomas being added reduced the pro-abort majority from 7-2 to 5-4 but it did not overturn Roe v. Wade.

When Rehinquist is replaced by Clarence Thomas, and he is replaced by Janice Rogers Brown, it will still be 5-4.

When John Paul Stevens is replaced, that is when the real fun begins. But he will probably end up being replaced by someone like Alberto Gonzales, and it won't matter anyway.

[Mr. Jeeves]

I think it's really that "the woman's seat" on the Court is going to a white male...and the next woman appointed is likely to be a conservative black female (Janice Rogers Brown) replacing a reliably liberal troll (Stevens).

There's enough in that concatenation of circumstances to make feminist heads do the full Linda Blair act for years. ;)