LAT op/ed: Roberts would undermine settled law on Roe, Rights, Religion

[Nothing Without Hope]

A thoughtful editorial by a University of Virginia School of Law professor. There's more at stake than "the three R's," of course, but this is a tidy way of summarizing. (I do recommend reading the article in its entirety.) In his final sentence, Schragger states firmly that if allowed to join the SCOTUS, Roberts would be "apt to undermine settled constitutional law with all three."

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-schragger21jul21,0,587875.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions
July 21, 2005 latimes.com : Opinion : Commentary

At risk: Roe, rights and religion

By Richard Schragger, Richard Schragger is an associate professor at the University of Virginia School of Law.

Democrats knew that whoever was chosen to fill Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's seat on the Supreme Court was going to be conservative and that he would have the opportunity to change the balance of the court in three monumental areas: abortion, civil and political rights, and separation of church and state. What they might have thought was that they'd have a choice about which area of law they would have to sacrifice. But, with John G. Roberts Jr., it looks like they will lose on all three "Rs": Roe, rights and religion.

First, Roe. Though the "right to choose" appears to have a 6-3 majority on the court, that majority is thin and deceptive. The court will have to decide the constitutionality of bans on so-called partial-birth abortion, and it may have to address revived state spousal-notification laws and restrictions on abortion providers, such as zoning laws or government filing requirements.

(snip)

Second, rights. O'Connor was skeptical of executive power and joined the other moderates in rejecting the Bush administration's expansive interpretation of its powers to detain "enemy combatants" in its "war" on terrorism. Roberts is serving on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, where he recently gave a free pass to the administration, holding that the Geneva Convention could not be enforced by the detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and reinstating the show trials there. Other decisions by Roberts while he has been on the appeals court indicate that he has embraced a narrow interpretation of the 4th Amendment's ban on unreasonable search and seizures (including his decision to uphold the arrest of a 12-year-old girl handcuffed by police on the Washington subway for eating a single French fry).

Third, religion. Though O'Connor voted with the conservatives to allow school vouchers to fund religious schools, she joined the moderates in enforcing the separation of church and state in other areas. Roberts wrote briefs for the George H.W. Bush administration urging a less rigid separation between church and state and argued in favor of permitting prayer at high school graduation ceremonies, a position the Supreme Court later rejected.

(snip)

[papau]

1. more links/opinion on topic

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=141280&mesg_id=141280

[Nothing Without Hope]

2. Kick - and thanks n/t

[papau]

4. one more kick! :-)

:-)

[Nothing Without Hope]

3. kick n/t

[Nothing Without Hope]

5. I do think this should have received more attention - it's a useful

summary on Roberts in a reputable venue.