ACLU analysis of John Roberts

[AAsch at aol.com]

ACLU Policy 519 requires the ACLU to prepare a summary of  every Supreme 
Court nominee's record on civil liberties issue. I  just got through reading the 
one on John Roberts and thought members  of this list might be interested in 
it. It's at:
 
_http://www.aclu.org/court/court.cfm?ID=18987&c=316_ 
(http://www.aclu.org/court/court.cfm?ID=18987&c=316) 
 
There's a little good news, but here's a summary of the bad news from an  
ACLU perspective, with more details in the report:
 
"Roberts has relied on notions of ‘judicial restraint’ and  ‘states’ rights’
 throughout his career to advocate positions that the ACLU has  opposed. For 
example:  
• He ruled that the  Geneva Conventions are not judicially enforceable and 
upheld the military  commissions established by President Bush through executive 
order. 
• He argued that  Congress has the power to strip the Supreme Court of 
jurisdiction to hear cases  involving abortion, school prayer and busing, although 
he also argued against  exercising that power as a matter of policy. 
• He opposed efforts  to reinstate the 'effects' test under the Voting Rights 
Act, arguing that  federal law should only protect minority voting rights 
against acts of  intentional discrimination. 
• He opposed  affirmative action. 
• He signed a brief  while in the Solicitor General’s Office urging that Roe 
v. Wade be overruled.  (During his confirmation hearings for the D.C. Court 
of Appeals, Roberts  described Roe as “the settled law of the land.”). 
• He argued that  female prisoners could be given fewer services than male 
prisoners and opposed  any judicially enforced notion of comparable worth. 
• He sought to limit  access to the courts by advocating a narrow view of 
standing and arguing against  implied rights of action. 
• He sought to place  restrictions of federal habeas corpus long before 
Congress acted to put those  restrictions in place. 
• He argued that  plaintiffs should be required to prove coercion in order to 
prevail on an  Establishment Clause claim, and expressed no objection to a 
proposed  constitutional amendment authorizing a moment of silence in schools. 
•  He suggested that New York Times v. Sullivan had tilted First  Amendment 
law too far in favor of journalists and that public figures should be  allowed 
to recover for libel based on nothing more than negligence so long as  they 
were willing to forego any claim to punitive  damages."
 
Allen Asch
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20050912/a9176a88/attachment.html