I spent the day studying up on this fellow. Interesting choice, he has exactly 20 months experience as a judge on a fedearl appeals court. He has NO paper trail whatsoever on any first amendment issue, he has argued for abortion bans (for his client, the U S government) but has also stated that he personally thinks Roe v. Wade is settled.
That seeming inconsistancy is going to be the focus of his nomination process. Unfortuneatly.
See the whole abortion thing is ridiculous, it isn’t even before the court to revisit Roe v. Wade but lets assume for the moment that the God squad gets it’s way and the Supreme Court REVERSES Roe v. Wade ( which is HIGHLY unlikely) but what happens if it does?
If you answered nothing you are correct. It will be up to the states to decide if that particular state wants to allow abortion and under what conditions, so some states will allow abortion others won’t. The push will then be on the feds to either amend the constitution banning abortion altogether ( and brothers and sisters that AINT going to happen ) or to have abortion punished as homicide at the federal level, that aint gonna happen either. So as you can see vacating that ruling would set up a tremendous amount of turmoil in terms of equal right., civil rights and and privacy rights cases that would be filed before the ink was dry on the majority opinion. Best to leave it alone and the Justices all know it.
In reviewing his opinions, he has more often than not sided with whatever side was representing the authority of the federal or local government. Consider this….the case that will cause him the most discomfort:
This case grew out of an infamous incident in the District of Columbia several years ago — the arrest of a 12-year-old girl for eating a single french fry on the Metro during a “zero tolerance” crackdown by transit police on Metro riders violating the subway’s rules against eating and drinking. The child was searched, handcuffed, her shoelaces were removed, she was taken away in a windowless police vehicle, fingerprinted, and held for three hours until she was released into her mother’s custody. The mother brought a civil rights action on behalf of her daughter under 42 U.S.C. §1983, claiming that her daughter’s Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights had been violated. In particular, the mother claimed that the child’s equal protection rights had been violated because, under then-D.C. law, adults in the same situation would only have been given a citation, while juveniles had to be arrested. (In response to the negative publicity surrounding this incident, the no-citation policy for juveniles was changed.)
Judge Roberts’s opinion (joined by Judges Karen LeCraft Henderson and Stephen Williams) affirmed the district court’s ruling against the mother. In rejecting the equal protection claim, Roberts held that the law requiring harsher treatment of juveniles was rationally related to “the legitimate goal of promoting parental awareness and involvement with children who commit delinquent acts.” 386 F.3d at 1156. According to Roberts, juveniles given citations might give the police “an entirely fanciful [name] or, better yet, the name of the miscreant who pushed them on the playground that morning,” and their parents would then never know about their transgression. Id.
Although Roberts began his opinion by noting that “[n]o one is very happy about the events that led to this litigation,” and that the district court had termed the policy “foolish,” Roberts appeared dismissive of the serious concerns raised by the use of police power in this case, stating that “the policies were changed after those responsible endured the sort of publicity reserved for adults who make young girls cry.” Id. at 1150. The police, however, did far more than make the child cry; they arrested her, handcuffed her, took her away in a police vehicle, and gave her an arrest record that she must now live with.
Now after reading this consider the behavior of Mr. Roberts own son while on stage last night, apparently he doesn’t practice what he would preach. Now I am not saying he is a bad parent but if juveniles should be held to the same standard as adults in trivial matters in order to make sure the parents are aware of the behavior then Mr Roberts deserves to be called on the carpet for the behavior of his son last night, just to make sure he knows there is a problem.
Two more decisions that bother me:
• Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992)
In 1991, as Deputy Solicitor General, Roberts co-authored an amicus curiae brief filed by the United States in the case of Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992), in which he urged the Court to rule that it was constitutional for a public school to sponsor prayer at its graduation ceremonies. While Roberts’s brief acknowledged that coerced participation in a religious ceremony was improper, the brief claimed that no such coercion was present here, since students were free not to attend their graduations: “A voluntary decision not to witness a civic acknowledgment of religion . . . cannot be considered a response to coercion.”
In this case the Court rejected Roberts’s argument, holding that public schools may not sponsor prayer at graduation ceremonies. The Court specifically noted the coercive nature of the event. While recognizing that students may not formally be required to attend their own graduation ceremonies, the Court likewise recognized that the importance of this event means that attendance is not “voluntary” in “any real sense of the term.” 505 U.S. at 595. The Court stated that the government’s argument to the contrary “lacks all persuasion,” noting that the “[l]aw reaches past formalism.” Id. And the Court specifically criticized the government’s argument for its erroneous First Amendment analysis:
• United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990)
Roberts, then Deputy Solicitor General, co-authored the government’s brief in United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990), contending that the Flag Protection Act of 1989, which criminalized flag burning, was constitutional. Although Roberts’s brief conceded that the conduct at issued constituted “expressive conduct,” the brief claimed that “[t]he First Amendment does not prohibit Congress . . . from removing the American flag as a prop available to those who seek to express their own views by destroying it.”6 In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court majority, including Justice Scalia, disagreed, holding that the law violated the First Amendment. As the Court explained in striking down the law, “[p]unishing desecration of the flag
The only way I can see that flag burning could be deemed illegal is if legislation is passed making the American flag the sole property of the federal government…like money is. If you buy a flag, you own it and however distasteful it may be to me to see you burn it, you should have that right.
As for prayer in public schools, this is another case of government failing to understand that freedom of religion really does mean freedom from religion in government institutions, the constitution expressly forbids any religion being associated with any government. If you wish to pray in school nobody is stopping you but for the school to mandate prayer to a captive audience is in fact, wrong. If you wish your child to have a formal education that includes religious doctrine that option is available to you in private schools.
What concerns me most is that we are considering a man with absolutely no real experience as a judge to sit on the highest court in the land for the rest of his life or until he voluntarily retires. He will likely still be on the court when I am dead. Personally I’d like a lot more breadth and depth of experience in someone that we as citizens are placing that much trust in.
