Roberts wrote "We continue to believe that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided

[bigtree]

He wrote this in a brief presented to the Supreme Court in the case of Rust V. Sullivan, which was brought to the court by doctors and practitioners working in abortion clinics who sought to overturn government regulations that said they couldn't discuss abortion with their patients. The penalty for mentioning abortion to their patients was loss of federal funding. The Supreme Court eventually decided that, indeed, they could strip funding from those clinics that insisted on telling their patients the full truth and full range of options.

Roberts wrote further:

". . . the Court's conclusions in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion and that government has no compelling interest in protecting prenatal human life throughout pregnancy find no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution."

Rust v. Sullivan (500 U.S. 173, 1991)

As deputy solicitor general, Roberts also argued in favor of a government regulation that banned abortion-related counseling by federally-funded family planning programs. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Roberts)

In 2003, during his confirmation hearing for appointment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, when he was asked by senators nervous of him defying previous Supreme Court decisions because of personal beliefs, Roberts said, "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land...There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent."


So, not only does Roberts want Roe v. Wade overturned, he's willing to lie to achieve a position of power where he can undo the law.

[Guckert]

1. Maybe they will put 15 year old rape victims on Death Row for Pre-

meditated Murder????? we surely would be the city on the hill, then. :sarcasm:

[LizMoonstar]

2. my question is..

as part of his job when he wrote those briefs, he was supposed to try to prove a case to overturn. that doesn't necessarily mean he agrees. why do we assume that that was the truth and the law of the land quote is the lie?

asking, not accusing, please. i.e. what other evidence?

[dogday]

3. How about this information

While working under Presidents Reagan and Bush, Mr. Roberts supported a hard-line, anti-civil rights policy that opposed affirmative action, would have made it nearly impossible for minorities to prove a violation of the Voting Rights Act and would have “resegregated” America’s public schools. He also took strongly anti-choice positions in two Supreme Court cases, one that severely restricted the ability of poor women to gain information about abortion services, and another that took away a key means for women and clinics to combat anti-abortion zealots.


source:
Report of the Alliance for Justice:
Opposition to the Confirmation of John G. Roberts
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

[bigtree]

7. These are not insignificant concerns

At the very least, they should be fleshed out in a vigorous hearing process. I look foward to more knowledgable opposition than I can provide second-hand.

[K-W]

4. He didnt lie. You are spinning this a little.

When he was arguing in front of the supreme court, he was not arguing his own opinion per se. He was arguing on behalf of the solicitors office. The decision to argue agaisnt Roe was made by the White House.

I am certainly not saying the opinion is meaningless, but it isnt definitive either.

On the same token however, his saying he would follow precedent at his appeals court nomination isnt definitive either. As an appeals court judge he was in no position to overturn precedent, he had to follow it. But a supreme court judge can overturn precedent.

Basically, there is no way of knowing how he as a judge would rule on Roe from his record. It seems certain he would be open to limiting abortion rights though through notification laws and other hoops.

[bigtree]

8. I am spinning

like a frickin top. You know, I'd feel less inclined to histrionics if I could be assured that we will see a vigorous hearing process that challenges Roberts on these issues.

I don't believe for a moment that Roberts is a moderate. I believe that he will do everything he can to shoot down Roe v. Wade. I believe that he will do whatever he can to further the conservative agenda, which has become dangerously extreme, threatening our security, our rights, our health, and the health and well-being of our communities and environment. I'm not going to sit by, naive, knowing what I do about the ruthlessness of this administration and their cohorts in Congress, and hope beyond hope that rationality will prevail over republican extremism.

Now, we all know Bush wouldn't have picked Roberts if he wasn't their kind of conservative. The dangerous kind. I'm not going into this fight with blinders on. I think I do know what Roberts would do with Roe v. Wade. I'm certainly not willing to wait until he actually threatens the law and sets his lifetime authority against other prerogatives important to me to oppose him.

I don't trust Bush. I don't trust any republican with power over the issues and concerns that most affect me. I hope folks who feel as I do will show up in numbers to challenge Roberts. I don't expect them to be swayed by nuances like jurisdiction or promises to respect precedent. I won't be.

[Jersey Devil]

5. Willing to lie?

A district court judge or a court of appeals judge MUST follow the law of the land as ruled by SCOTUS. That is not a "lie". He must be willing to obey the law even if it conflicts with his personal beliefs.

For instance, any trial judge who is personally against the death penalty must promise to sentence someone to the death penalty if the law requires it. It is part of the basic judicial oath.

[bigtree]

6. why is this nominee not considered controversial or extreme?

The entire republican agenda is extreme. Has the prospect of republicans overturning Roe v. Wade become pale in the face of Bush's illegal war and his systematic eviceration of our civil and constitutional rights in pursuit of his 'war on terror'?

Does anyone really think we can protect these rights without opposing Bush? Opposing Roberts? We need to get busy fleshing out whatever we know about Roberts and prepare ourselves for advocacy. We can't allow ourselves to get cynical or complacent, camping out at Fitzgeralds door waiting for a Rove indictment, afraid to disturb the silence that hosts our anticipation. That case will proceed, so will the SCOTUS hearings. We should not risk having the public ask themselves where the opposition to Bush lies.