Thursday, July 21, 2005

Stop the ACLU Blogburst: The More We Ask, the Less We Seem to Know

   The ACLU has already condemned Judge Roberts has "authored briefs calling for Roe v. Wade to be overruled............and seeking to criminalize flag burning as a form of political protest." What they neglect to note is that the brief, Rust v Sullivan, a challenge to the federal provision barring funds for "abortion counseling services"(which the USSC upheld), in which he avowed the George H W Bush administration's position on Roe v Wade, was one in his professional capacity as a deputy Solicitor General. For that reason, one cannot construe his having said that to be indicative of his personal beliefs. Roberts has also characterized Roe v Wade as being the "settled law of the land." This, too, far from a ringing endorsement, merely states that, as a federal district court judge, and, later, as an appeals court judge,he was bound by supreme court precedent, which, on the nation's highest court, he would be no longer. Thus, Judge Roberts's inclinations on the constitutionality of Roe v Wade, a belief on which there can be no litmus test, remains yet unrevealed, although one could surmise that he would embrace the many trenchant constitutional criticisms of the decision, he would not vote to overturn it. Supreme court justices, too, seem far from immune from the vagaries of the American populace.
   In a(ultimately successful) constitutional challenge to the 1989 flag-burning act, Roberts filed an amicus ciricae brief drawing parallels between flag-burning and other behaviors that are verboten "for the common good." Not only the ACLU oppose a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning(which would be legally unimpeachable), they neglect to note that transpired during his tenure as deputy Solicitor General and was, in all probability, done at the direction of his superiors. Not wishing to lose his job, or, perhaps, sharing their inclinations, Roberts obliged. For all the nepotism-laden machines operated by Democrats, one would think they would recognize this as the acts of someone in between a political rock and a hard place.
   However, observers on both sides can reach a consensus on one thing: Roberts's embattlement will make any other aspiring legal minds think twice about public service. And that, indeed, is a bipartisan casualty.


Post a Comment

<< Home