Tag Archives: scalia

Roberts and Romer

Posted on by

I’m very intrigued by the news about Judge Roberts and Romer v. Evans. My initial cautious admiration had been turning into worriment in the last couple of weeks, with all the news about his cocky Reagan-era views, but this reassures me a bit. It doesn’t mean a whole lot – again, whom you represent or advise as a lawyer doesn’t necessarily say anything about your own views. But I can’t imagine that Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas would have volunteered, pro bono, to help out the gays.

On the other hand, the issue in Romer v. Evans was pretty egregious. It involved the following amendment to the Colorado constitution:

“Neither the State of Colorado, through any of its branches or departments, nor any of its agencies, political subdivisions, municipalities or school districts, shall enact, adopt or enforce any statute, regulation, ordinance or policy whereby homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships shall constitute or otherwise be the basis of or entitle any person or class of persons to have or claim any minority status, quota preferences, protected status or claim of discrimination. This Section of the Constitution shall be in all respects self-executing.”

In short, the amendment (which passed) legalized all types of discrimination against gays and lesbians – in employment, in housing, in whatever. Opposition to that amendment wouldn’t necessarily translate to sympathy for gay marriage or other gay-rights issues. As Arthur Leonard says in the linked article above, “There is certainly a difference between striking down laws that impose second-class citizenship on a class of people and supporting more affirmative rights for such people, and I don’t think a judge’s position on one necessary predicts his position on the other.” (It could be argued, of course, that same-sex marriage bans impose second-class citizenship on a class of people, but I know what he’s getting at.)

So like everything else that has been uncovered thus far, it doesn’t say much about Roberts other than that he’s not a Scalia or Thomas. Well, it also says he might not be a Rehnquist.

But also, Roberts, at age 50, would be the youngest member of the current Court by seven years. (Thomas is 57.) Scalia will be 70 next year. While age does not predict attitude, someone born in 1955 will have grown up in a different cultural context than someone born in 1936. Judge Roberts was 14 at the time of the Stonewall riots, for instance. Not that that necessarily means anything, but it’s something to keep in mind.

Anyway, this whole thing is intriguing. I guess we’ll see what it means.

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!