Organizations with a main interest in abortion law and policy were among those to quickly weigh in on Judge John G. Roberts' suitability for serving on the U.S. Supreme Court.
President George W. Bush July 19 nominated Roberts, 50, to fill the vacancy on the court created by the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
Clarke Forsythe of Americans United for Life, a public interest law firm specializing in abortion and other life issues, said Roberts is "an experienced jurist with impeccable credentials. ... Judges are not legislators. We should all appreciate the president's determination to nominate someone he is confident will interpret the law rather than make it."
Forsythe said the Senate "should take care to only question Judge Roberts regarding his judicial philosophy rather than specific issues that would force him to recuse himself when those cases are brought before the court."
A federal appeals court judge for the District of Columbia, Roberts is a Catholic who has represented both Bush and the Reagan administration in private practice and as a deputy U.S. solicitor general and as an aide to the attorney general and the White House counsel.
While working for the Justice Department, he helped write at least one brief to the Supreme Court which said, "We continue to believe that Roe (vs. Wade, which legalized abortion nationwide) was wrongly decided and should be overruled.''
In confirmation hearings for his current seat in 2003, Roberts said that brief "was my position as an advocate for a client.''
"Roe vs. Wade is the settled law of the land," he said. "It's a little more than settled."
The National Right to Life Committee issued a press release pointing out that the court has accepted two cases dealing with abortion for the coming term.
Oral arguments in both cases will be heard Nov. 30. One is the court's third look at a case over whether the National Organization for Women was legally entitled to use racketeering statutes to sue anti-abortion activists. The other case involves New Hampshire's law requiring minors to have parental consent before they may obtain abortions.
The committee said that based on similar past rulings, the court without O'Connor would be likely to split 4-4 on the New Hampshire case. The statement from the organization's legislative director, Douglas Johnson, said that "liberal pressure groups will insist that Senate Democrats filibuster" a vote to approve Roberts, "unless he pledges in advance to vote against allowing elected legislators to place meaningful limits on abortion."
Father Frank Pavone, national director of Priests for Life, issued a statement also warning Senate Democrats "especially those seeking re-election next year ... that we will be watching them carefully. If they again attempt to attack a nominee's faith or pro-life convictions, their constituents will know about it and they will be held accountable."
The National Pro-Life Action Center said Roberts is "uniquely qualified" to meet the organization's ideal that "any nominee to the Supreme Court must meet the 'Rehnquist standard.' Simply put, this means that the nominee must concur with (Chief) Justice (William) Rehnquist's eloquent dissent in the Roe vs. Wade decision on the basis that this decision was morally and constitutionally erroneous."
Organizations that support legal abortion also were quick to comment on Roberts' nomination.
The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice said Roberts' nomination "is clearly the next step toward the extreme right wing's stated mission to overturn Roe vs. Wade and end constitutional protections for women's health and safety."
The Feminist Majority Foundation's president, Eleanor Smeal, said that if Roberts "is to be confirmed by senators who support women's rights, he must say where he stands on Roe and the right to privacy." Smeal said his record suggests he "will be a solid vote against women's rights and Roe vs. Wade."
Frances Kissling, president of Catholics for a Free Choice, which supports legal abortion, issued a statement saying recent judicial appointments have generated both appropriate scrutiny as well as "some unwelcome and bigoted references to religiosity. Some have claimed that the standard used to judge Catholic nominees to federal courts have constituted religious discrimination.
"These claims are based on the assumption that a faithful Catholic is obliged to follow church positions on issues like abortion, contraception, access to reproductive health services, end-of-life decision-making, the death penalty and gay rights," but "faithful Catholics hold a wide range of views on what the Constitution demands, regardless of their personal religious views about the morality of these issues," Kissling said.
Her statement prompted a quick response from Father Pavone.
"Nobody is forced to be a Catholic, but if you don't subscribe to Catholic teaching, have the honesty and integrity to say that you are no longer Catholic," he said. "But don't try to have it both ways. That's a game children play, not adults. Because Kissling has played this game for many years, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has had to publicly state more than once that Catholics for a Free Choice is not a Catholic organization and does not in any way represent the church."
"The agenda of Catholics for a Free Choice is an agenda of confusion," he said.
Fidelis, a group organized to support the election of candidates and the confirmation of judges who are "pro-life, pro-family and pro-religious liberty," said in a statement that Roberts' confirmation hearing would be "ripe for anti-religious bigotry."
Fidelis president Joseph Cella said the statements of every senator about Roberts "will be watched. If any senator crosses the line and attacks Judge Roberts because of his Catholic faith or family life, they will be held accountable."
Supreme Knight Carl A. Anderson of the Knights of Columbus pointed out that while in private practice, Roberts argued a case pro-bono for some of Washington's "neediest welfare recipients who were about to lose their benefits under the D.C. Public Assistance Act. He is someone who knows and appreciates the plight of the poor, especially those who have the most difficult time getting fair and even-handed treatment in our legal system."
---CNS |