National Urban League Urges Senate to Oppose Elevating Judge John Roberts

[struggle4progress]

.. to Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court

National Urban League President and CEO Marc H. Morial today urged the Senate to reject the nomination of Judge John Roberts to be Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. <snip>

"As we requested, Committee members questioned Judge Roberts closely about his views on civil rights, his rationale for his previous positions in opposition to civil rights remedies such as affirmative action, and whether he still holds such views today. We were deeply disappointed that, rather than adequately addressing these concerns, Judge Roberts provided inadequate responses, or, in some instances, skirted these questions altogether.

"For example, in his writings, the nominee staunchly opposed affirmative action, claiming that it is constitutionally impermissible to consider race in hiring and retention matters. He argued that affirmative action programs were bound to fail because they required "the recruiting of inadequately prepared candidates" and referred to 'the purported need for race-conscious remedies such as busing and affirmative action.' When asked about this during his testimony, Judge Roberts stated that he has always supported affirmative action but opposes 'quotas.' However, throughout his testimony, Judge Roberts repeatedly mischaracterized valid affirmative action measures as 'quotas,' calling into question his understanding of and support for affirmative action.

"During his government service, the nominee vigorously fought against the use of the 'effects test' to prove discrimination, arguing that Voting Rights Act violations 'should not be made too easy to prove.' The National Urban League believes strongly that the Voting Rights Act is critical to ensure a truly participatory government, and that violations should be treated with the utmost seriousness. Therefore, we were particularly interested to hear whether Judge Roberts continues to hold such unacceptable views. However, in his Senate testimony, Judge Roberts refused to disavow these previous positions or to state his current view of the effects test in voting rights and other civil rights cases. Given the importance of the issue of voting rights and the critical role that Judge Roberts will play in interpreting the Voting Rights Act, his responses in this regard were unacceptable. <snip>

http://www.civilrights.org/issues/nominations/details.cfm?id=35889

[firefox]

1. This is not a decision making process.

Roberts is a rubber-stamping process. What are these guys thinking?

[struggle4progress]

2. Maybe they're getting their tickets punched to prove they were trying ..

.. to do something -- it's sometimes useful ...

[firefox]

3. All opposition is welcome

Yes, some organizations might go on record to show loyalty. At least this gives people a sort on the Urban League as being a thinking body instead of the some shill organization with one of those all-American names.

Remember the organization of lawyers that used to rate or recommend judges that the Republicans through out when Bu$h was first selected? I wonder what they have to say about approving the fascist's fascist.

[struggle4progress]

4. "Go on record to prove loyalty" is not at all what I'm saying, and ..

.. I expect people who have been paying attention for years already know the Urban League.

I would, however, suggest that your current practice of announcing everywhere the hopelessness and meaninglessness of any thought of fighting back does not serve any progressive agenda I can imagine ...

[firefox]

5. You misunderstand

I am saying that it is obvious that Roberts is not worthy. The organizations created for the echo chamber effect are the ones that would show loyalty by supporting him.

There is nothing that is going to stop this nomination. That does not mean we should not oppose it. I am just saying this is a done deal. I think it is realism even if fatalism calls for the same conclusion.