Roberts Argued Liberal Positions
by RonChusidThe big question for observers on the left and right is whether John Roberts will be a far right conservative on the court or whether he will follow the course of many other conservatives and become more moderate. Despite all the media reports there remains no way to really know, but my fear is that the person who appointed him has more insight into Roberts than anyone else. The appointment process has become increasingly political and we cannot count on a repeat of previous examples.
As it appears Roberts will be confirmed unless something far worse should arise in the Senate hearings, I am looking for any signs of optimism. The Washington Post reports today:
As a private lawyer, John G. Roberts Jr. represented homeless Washingtonians who had lost their government benefits because of city budget cuts. He advocated environmental protections for Lake Tahoe, Glacier Bay and the Grand Canyon. He spent 25 hours assisting a convicted murderer with a death penalty appeal. He even helped gay rights activists win a landmark Supreme Court anti-discrimination case.
The significance of this is questionable. It is likely a case of an attorney representing his client regardless of his personal opinions, while such personal opinions would affect his decisions on the Supreme Court. While we can’t count on these cases to predict Roberts’ behavior, I am happy to see he has fought cases such as these. At very least he is familiar with liberal arguments, and it might be harder for him to totally ignore arguments he has used himself in the past. Unfortunately his record supporting conservative arguments is much stronger.
Filed under: In The News | Get Permalink or trackback |
With such a tight ideological grip of this movement, and by others having contributed to his rise, his career, is he beholden? Is he free to express whatever judgment or independence shown by Souter, for instance?
Can he say no to Grover Norquist, the Federalists? If they diminish in control, as we hope, who and what will he be?
As a Supreme Court justice he is free to be independent. It’s not as if he needs someone for a promotion. Sure the right wing could start to complain about him, but there’s nothing they could do.
The question is whether he holds views any different from people such as Grover Norquist which might be expressed in his decisions.
Just saying we know the Supremes can be politically, as well as, ideologically motivated.
Roberts is one of the new crop of telegenic, smart, mild stealth candidates groomed for this seat. Not many decisions or paper trail, but there is still a lot to indicate bias against the protections currently law.
Will he grow in this opportunity, or be used?
Off to work.
I found the fact that for pro bono work he did this as well as work for gay rights really interesting. I am not sure what to think about Roberts. But this line they give that you cannot identify lawyers with the cases they handle is bull. Plaintiff lawyers and criminal defense lawyers tend to be liberal. Civil defense lawyers and criminal prosecutors tend to be on the conservative side of things politically. As an attorney, you gravitate to the work for which you have passion. So this makes Roberts’ pro bono choices confusing but perhaps encouraging.
The Washington Post article also points out that Roberts was willing to do this type of work, while other conservatives would avoid it.
What bothers me is the selectiveness. All those papers hiding what? We happen to see an improved look at race and gays, the GOP vulnerability? Just cynical.
Does the gay rights activism underscore his stance on voting rights and Roe v Wade? Is the Noise Machine playing up this new shed gay rights activism purposely as we know they are prone to do?
Pamela,
Actually we don’t know his stand on Roe v. Wade. On the one hand he is not supportive of abortion rihgts. On the other hand, he has made comments to give the impression he would not vote to overturn established law on this.
I also doubt the Republicans want someone who would overturn Row v. Wade. If that happens abortion becomes an issue in every election. Republicans would either have to give up their current stand (and lose the support of the religious right) or change their stands (and likely lose everywhere but the south).
Right, Ron. Roe V. Wade isn’t going anywhere. There are much more disturbing actions of Roberts that aren’t exciting enough for the news.
We’re going to have to count on fate in this whole SC game I’m afraid, to weed out the destructive elements.
While I doubt they will overturn Roe v. Wade, what I fear will happen is that they will place more barriers in the way of having abortions.
Besides Roberts apparent lack of support for privacy rights, the other most significant problem so far is his support for increased power for the Executive Branch.
Ron
It’s not so much that I think they will outwardly try to overturn Roe v Wade, but as you mentioned placing more barriers in the way of having safe and legal abortions. My concern with Roberts, is that is pretty well understood his personal stance on the issue, but will he leave his opinion out of his rulings and rule for what is best for all. He’s no O’Connor, we know that. I do fear we are losing the swing vote and if, a very large IF, they try to overturn what will happen.
There’s too much money in the abortion business. I don’t think it will be affected. And probably the Republican pandering to the right wing will soon be useless. They are too much of a minority and are becoming a liability.
I mean the right wing religious extremists.
I don’t think money will be an issue here as with other some other issues which divide Republican factions.
I believe most of the money made from abortion is by small clinics and by physicians who perform the procedure. It’s not like stem cell research where the business community rebelled against the religious right because the big pharmaceutical companies saw a lot of money to be made.