|
Equal
Justice Society Opposes Nomination
of John Roberts as Chief Justice of
U.S. Supreme Court
Statement
by Eva Paterson, President
September 6, 2005
See
our Sept. 19 action alert
The
Equal Justice Society opposes the nomination of Judge John Roberts
as Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court and encourages
the Senate to withhold its consent of his nomination, as is their
right according to the Constitution.
Our
organization was in formed in part to advance a progressive view
of the law and the Constitution consistent with the efforts of
the attorneys who fought to eliminate de jure segregation.
One of EJS's goals is to shape a Supreme Court that is fair and
independent in order to reverse the destructive legal legacy of
those that seek to restrict our most basic civil and human rights.
For
the past quarter-century, another group of advocates, including
the Federalist Society and attorneys in the Reagan and Bush Justice
Departments, has attempted to devolve jurisprudence to the era
before Brown and the civil rights movement. The nomination of
Judge Roberts marks another signpost along the Rightward path
blazed by the Federalist Society. The Equal Justice Society stands
squarely in favor of a progressive vision of justice and rejects
the judicial ideology represented by his nomination.
First,
his record - that we know of - reveals a hostility to the values
held by the majority of Americans. Of even greater concern, neither
the Senate nor the public has been told the full story of Judge
Roberts' record. What we do know of him leads us to believe that
his presence on the court will further roll back the federal government's
ability to protect the rights of Americans.
As
early as 1981 -- when the robust implementation of Brown was less
than a decade old and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was still in
its infancy -- Roberts expressed contempt for affirmative action
and other progressive efforts to undo the present effects of past
state-sponsored discrimination.
It
is unclear what status Judge Roberts thinks that people of color
should enjoy in the United States, yet he apparently views as
illegitimate any forthright or effective attempt to remedy the
history that has generated the present state of profound inequity.
In
the mid-1980s - when the disparity between the pay earned by men
and by women for the same work was even greater than it is today
- Roberts levied enthusiastic criticism at the implementation
of the Equal Pay Act, criticizing members of his own party, including
then-Congresswoman Olympia Snowe, for their public support of
Washington state employees who were seeking equal pay. He compared
their efforts to Communism, surely the most derogatory comparison
in his vocabulary, given his apparent value structure.
Judge
Roberts lent his enthusiastic efforts to the Reagan administration's
unrelenting efforts to overturn Roe v. Wade and leave poor
women once again to the brutal ministrations of back-alley abortionists.
The ability of women to have safe and affordable control over
their reproductive lives, free from punitive state interference,
is one of the most important civil rights issues of our generation.
Although observers have noted that Roberts was acting in his capacity
as a lawyer and representative of the administration in those
cases, we believe that Roberts made a choice in aligning himself
with an administration that was bent upon rolling back reproductive
rights, and he contributed his efforts to that cause over the
course of years. He is responsible for the positions that he promoted,
whether or not they represent his personal views.
While the nominee's record provides ample cause for concern, the
larger story here is that we do not have full access to his record.
We have been provided only with portions of his writings that
have been screened and selected by the Administration. As is well
known, this President - who won only a bare majority in one of
his two elections - has governed as an unrepentant and unrelenting
extremist. Having consistently used his office to mislead and
misinform the American people whenever it has suited his purposes
to do so, this President has not earned any trust on the matter
of this nomination.
There is much at stake. For the past 13 years, the Supreme Court
has engaged in a silent revolution by rolling back the power of
the federal government to provide for the needs of the American
people and to enforce its laws against the States. Relying upon
19th century precedents that lent their implicit sanction to practices
like Jim Crow and systematic lynchings, this Court has seriously
curtailed many of the progressive victories secured in the halls
of Congress over the last 50 years. There is every indication
that Judge Roberts will join this trend and continue imposing
unwarranted constraints on the power of Congress to provide for
the welfare of the nation and its people.
There
are still a majority of Americans who believe that people of color
are entitled to fair opportunities, that women are entitled to
equal pay for equal work, and that the States should be just as
accountable as private corporations to their employees and their
citizens when they violate federal law.
The
person who will become the next Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
should be a person whose willingness to abide by the precedents
that have given voice to these values is clear and unambiguous.
The
Chief Justice is also the leader of the Court. Chief Justice Earl
Warren helped persuade all nine Justices to strike down 'separate
but equal.' The person who holds this position must be someone
who respects the rights of all.
Judge
Roberts is not that man.
|
