Three days after rapper Kanye West launched his brief, but telling, verbal war of attrition against the media accusing President George W. Bush of racism on live television, Bush announced his nomination of John G. Roberts - a man whose legal career has been defined by fighting for those trying to halt and reverse civil rights laws - for 17th chief justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.
In 1990, as Deputy Solicitor General, Roberts co-authored an amicus brief in support of the Oklahoma City Board of Education, which had found itself in the middle of a precarious lawsuit when it sought to overturn a District Court-mandated desegregation plan. The plan came as the penultimate legal measure to the litigation launched against the city in 1961 for organizing a "dual" school system (schools segregated by race). In an attempt to obstruct the school board's actions, Robert L. Dowell organized the African American community and resumed civil rights litigation.
What a revelation it must be for those Americans who have grown up under the pleasant delusion that the struggle for civil rights ended victoriously with the efforts of a past generation - to learn that the ideology of tolerance has only a temporal recognition in the American legal system and has yet to permeate into the thinking of many. No legal argument - no matter how meticulous its construction - could ever legitimize a plea for racial segregation. Manifestations of racism are unmistakable.
Isolated incidents such as Oklahoma City Public Schools v. Dowell seem to be self-contained outbursts except for one element: John G. Roberts. Roberts - who fought ardently on behalf of the Oklahoma School Board - is not the heart of intolerance, but the bridge. If Roberts is approved chief justice, one fears he will be allowed the chance to assert Oklahoma City Public School thinking from the lead position of the highest judicial structure in the nation.
Imagine it: America, a country whose social structure has been enriched and harmonized by civil rights, stands tolerant and passive as Roberts prepares to chip away at these achievements with the gavel of justice.
What seems particularly ominous is America has thus far utterly failed to pay any attention whatsoever to the nomination of Roberts beyond the fact he has been nominated. Currently, America remains understandably fixated on the disaster in New Orleans and certainly the ever-escalating violence in Iraq hasn't contributed to America's desire to focus on domestic political issues. Next to pictures of floating debris in New Orleans on the CNN homepage, America sees Roberts' picture smiling above a link to an article concerning his nomination. His face and demeanor seem harmless next to pictures of the chaos caused by Hurricane Katrina. America lost interest in political affiliations when "Operation Save Katrina Victims" became "Operation Collect the Dead." Perhaps it is this neglect that has led to Roberts being nearly universally labeled "moderate."
Yet if Roberts' legal career can at all be an accurate measure of his political intent, the only scale by which he can be said to hold moderate ideology is one in which the Democrats have been replaced by Libertarians.
It would seem in procedural accordance with the justice the American legal system is designed to maintain to grant Roberts the same benefit of the doubt that is granted all suspected felons. One would have to examine all the legal affairs Roberts was involved in during his four years in the Justice Department's Solicitor General's Office to come to an informed decision. Unfortunately, the White House has refused to release the documents containing this information. The refusal to release this information seems almost an invitation for speculation. There is only one logical reason why the White House would hide information on Roberts - because these documents must expose something in him that could threaten his nomination. This hardly seems to be a necessary course of action for safeguarding the nomination of a moderate.
At the very least one can compile the cases Roberts has taken part in. Perhaps this will give some insight.
In 1993, for the case of Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic, Roberts co-authored an amicus curiae brief in defense of six radical anti-choice activists from an organization called "Operation Rescue," who physically obstructed the entrance of a women's reproductive health clinic. Roberts' argument prevailed and it took the passing of the Freedom of Access into Clinic Entrances Act before women were again free to enter and leave buildings as they please.
In 1991, for the case Rust v. Sullivan, Roberts co-authored a brief in support of upholding the aptly titled "gag" rule, which forbids federally funded family care clinics from so much as discussing the option of abortion with patients. Although it was irrelevant, Roberts' brief contained the blatant assertion that Roe v. Wade should be overturned on the grounds of unconstitutionality. Perhaps this is a glimpse into what the White House is trying to conceal.
In 1992, for the case Lee v. Weisman, Roberts co-authored an amicus curiae brief in favor of public schools sponsoring prayers at graduation ceremonies. When the coercive nature of the situation was brought to Roberts' attention he rebutted by reminding the court students were free to not attend their graduation ceremonies.
If John G. Roberts becomes the 17th chief justice the Supreme Court will suffer a shift to the right that will, bearing in mind that the position of chief justice is a life-time position and Roberts is only 50 years old (quite young for the position), seem immutable. With Bush free to choose a replacement for Sandra Day O'Connor, it seems Roberts may soon be at liberty to interpret the document upon which all of the nation's laws are founded however he wishes.
What will be left of those civil liberties that have for so long progressed and pushed America forward beyond intolerance? What will be left of the rights women have struggled for when they are physically prevented from entering abortion clinics? What will be left of America's freedom of religion when members of all religions are subjected to Christian prayers in public institutions? If Roberts' career is as long as that of his predecessor he will remain in office for 40 years. 40 years in the future, civil rights may be where they were 40 years past. God bless America.
Sources:
http://political.moveon.org/roberts/info.html http://www.supremecourtwatch.org http://www.savethecourts.org http://straylight.law.cornell.edu http://www.washingtonpost.com
Be the first to comment on this article!