Tag Archives: roberts

Roberts and Gays

Posted on by

For at least a year before the nomination of Judge John G. Roberts to the Supreme Court, the White House was working behind the scenes to shore up support for him among its social conservative allies, quietly reassuring them that he was a good bet for their side in cases about abortion, same-sex marriage and public support for religion.

Yeah, so that kind of worries me.

Granted, the only other part of the article that mentions gay rights is this:

Mr. Leo said he told wary social conservatives that even though Judge Roberts had not ruled on abortion or other issues his other opinions showed “a respect for the text and original meaning and a presumption of deference to the political branches of government.” …

Mr. Leo said such narrow and deferential rulings are “going to comport better” with the restrained role that social conservatives want judges to play on questions about abortion, gay rights or religious displays, which they believed should be left to elected officials rather than the Supreme Court, Mr. Leo said.

Granted, there’s nothing specific there that says Roberts would vote for or against gay rights. But I won’t kid myself; as impressed as I am by him, he’s still a Bush nominee. So I’ll continue to hope what I’ve already been hoping for a while: that no same-sex marriage case comes before the Court in the near future. Regardless of the Court’s composition, one of two things would happen: either it would find bans on same-sex marriage constitutional, or it would find them unconstitutional and thereby practically guarantee passage of a constitutional amendment outlawing same-sex marriage. This is just not a good time for the Supreme Court to be ruling on gay marriage, period.

There are, of course, other gay rights issues that could come before the Court.

Anyway, we knew after last fall’s election results that things didn’t look good. At this point, we just have to keep our fingers crossed.

From Salon

Posted on by

From a letter in Salon.com:

My first wish is that the Democrats in the Senate confirm Roberts quickly, without much fuss, so our ADD media can get back to the Fitzgerald investigation that day by day threatens the permanent Republican majority in Washington far more effectively than the Democratic Party is capable of. It’s taken five fucking years for the media to stop playing stenographer and start acting like real reporters. A divisive partisan bitchfest over the Roberts nomination will only take the attention and focus away from the fact that the executive branch is filled with inveterate liars and criminals. Roberts is as good as it’s going to get if you’re a liberal, and you can’t just keep filibustering until 2009.

Dual Letters

Posted on by

Okay, this is weird.

In today’s Times:

To the Editor:

Re “Bush Picks Nominee for Court; Cites His ‘Fairness and Civility’ ” (front page, July 20):

I am a knee-jerk liberal, and I know that I will probably deplore many of the opinions that Judge John G. Roberts will write as a Supreme Court justice, if he is confirmed.

But I think that he is eminently qualified for the position and should be confirmed.

All Americans knew in the 2004 presidential election that Supreme Court nominations would play a big role in the near term. The public elected George W. Bush despite a clear understanding of his particular philosophy about constitutional interpretation and “legislating from the bench” – even if that negative characteristic applies equally to conservative and liberal judges.

The public will (and should have to) live with the choice that President Bush has made. Intellect and qualification should always be the prime concerns in selecting lifetime appointees to the high court.

In Judge Roberts, Mr. Bush appears to have gone above and beyond in those areas. That Judge Roberts may be crafted in the mold of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, judges whom President Bush says he admires, is our own fault.

Josh Goldberg
Chicago

In today’s Washington Post:

I am a liberal, and I know I will deplore a good number of the Supreme Court opinions John G. Roberts Jr. authors. But I think he is eminently qualified for the position and should be confirmed nonetheless.

Americans knew in the 2004 presidential election that Supreme Court nominations would play a big role in the near term. The public reelected George W. Bush despite a clear understanding of his particular philosophy about constitutional interpretation and “legislating from the bench” — even if that negative characteristic actually applies equally to conservative and liberal judges. The public will — and should have to — live with the choice that Mr. Bush has made.

Intellect and qualification should always be the prime concerns in selecting these lifetime appointees. In Judge Roberts, Mr. Bush appears to have gone above and beyond those standards. The fact that Roberts is crafted “in the mold of [Justices] Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas” is our own fault.

JOSH GOLDBERG

Chicago

From the New York Times’s letters policy:

“Letters to The Times should only be sent to The Times, and not to other publications.”

Oooh, they got burned!