July 21, 2005
THEY REALLY GOING TO ATTACK HER?:
Cautious selection could still face confirmation battle (Peter S. Canellos, July 20, 2005, Boston Globe)
The role of his lawyer wife, Jane Sullivan Roberts, in Feminists for Life, a group dedicated to overturning Roe v. Wade, is also certain to raise liberal eyebrows.
Wife of Nominee Holds Strong Antiabortion Views (Richard A. Serrano, July 21, 2005, LA Times)
While Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr.'s views on abortion triggered intense debate on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, there is no mistaking where his wife stands: Jane Sullivan Roberts, a lawyer, is ardently against abortion.A Roman Catholic like her husband, Jane Roberts has been deeply involved in the antiabortion movement. She provides her name, money and professional advice to a small Washington organization — Feminists for Life of America — that offers counseling and educational programs. The group has filed legal briefs before the high court challenging the constitutionality of abortion.
A spouse's views normally are not considered relevant in weighing someone's job suitability. But abortion is likely to figure prominently in the Senate debate over John Roberts' nomination. And with his position on the issue unclear, abortion rights supporters expressed concern Wednesday that his wife's views might suggest he also embraced efforts to overturn Roe vs. Wade.
"It's unclear how all this will affect her husband," said Jennifer Palmieri, a spokeswoman with the Center for American Progress, a liberal public policy group. "It's possible that he would have a different view than her. It's just that in the absence of information about this guy, people are looking at her and trying to read the tea leaves."
Asked to discuss her role with Feminists for Life, Jane Roberts said in an e-mail to the Los Angeles Times: "Thanks for your inquiry. At this time, however, I would like to decline your invitation to talk."
MORE:
'90 Brief Stirs Early Debate (R. Jeffrey Smith and Jo Becker, July 21, 2005,
Washington Post)
In 1990, 14 states, abortion rights advocates and civil rights supporters challenged the George H.W. Bush administration's decision to bar the use of public funds for abortion counseling. The task of defending the policy fell primarily to a 35-year-old Justice Department lawyer named John G. Roberts Jr.Roberts, who had been named to the senior political position in the Office of the Solicitor General 11 months earlier, oversaw the preparation of a brief for the Supreme Court in which he said barring that use of funds was constitutional and was faithful to the intent of Congress, several former colleagues said.
It was, by all accounts, a well-written if familiar recitation of facts. But right at the top of the 46-page brief, someone had inserted language denigrating Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court's 1973 decision upholding a women's right to abortion. That language has helped place abortion at the center of early debate over Roberts's nomination to the Supreme Court and made it likely that questions about the brief's authorship will play a large role in the Senate confirmation hearings.
"We continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled," said the Sept. 7, 1990, brief, which was signed -- as is customary in such cases -- by the Solicitor General, Kenneth W. Starr, and by an assistant attorney general, two department attorneys, and a deputy and an assistant in the solicitor's office, including Roberts.
The brief added in the same paragraph that "the Court's conclusions in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion and that the government has no compelling interest in protecting prenatal human life throughout pregnancy find no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution." It offered little else but this opinion on the subject. [...]
Antiabortion advocates said they have seen signs besides the brief that Roberts is one of their own. On conservative blogs, writers have noted that Roberts's wife, Jane, has had a lengthy affiliation with Feminists for Life, a Washington-based group that opposes abortion. Serrin M. Foster, the group's president, said Jane Roberts served on the board of directors from 1995 to 1999, and serves as the organization's pro-bono counsel as needed.
In 2003, the organization recognized her as a member of its Elizabeth Cady Stanton Circle after Roberts donated between $1,000 and $2,499. In a 2001 interview with its magazine, American Feminist, Jane Roberts offered legal advice on workplace benefits that accrue to adoptive parents and birth mothers. The Roberts's two small children, Josephine and Jack, are adopted.
Serrin said John Roberts has had nothing to do with the group, which she said focuses most of its efforts on providing resources to pregnant women on college campuses. As for how Roberts might vote on the subject if he is elevated to the Supreme Court, she added: "I have no idea. You have indications about where people are, but they can sometimes surprise you."
Roberts and his wife are practicing Catholics, attending the Church of the Little Flower in Bethesda. Through a spokesman at the archdiocese, their pastor, Monsignor Peter Vaghi, said he did not want to discuss the couple out of respect for their privacy but added: "I'm delighted he's been nominated, and my prayers are with the family."
At risk: Roe, rights and religion (Richard Schragger, July 21, 2005, LA Times)
[W]ith John G. Roberts Jr., it looks like they will lose on all three "Rs": Roe, rights and religion.Posted by Orrin Judd at July 21, 2005 12:00 AMFirst, 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.
As deputy solicitor general in the George H.W. Bush administration, Roberts argued that Roe vs. Wade was wrongly decided. If he is consistent, he'll probably vote to overturn it when and if he's offered the chance. And even if that isn't possible, given the majority that supports it, he seems likely to be in favor of nibbling away at abortion rights where possible. Though O'Connor was uncomfortable with abortion, she was a solid vote to prevent the dilution of Roe. Roberts' position that Roe was wrong could mean that he will take whatever swings he can at it.
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.
To the extent his views match his former boss', Roberts could provide the fifth vote to return prayer to schools, allow a significant expansion of government-sponsored religious displays and funnel more money to faith-based service providers.
no more than theresa heinz, probably.
Posted by: lonbud at July 21, 2005 12:14 AMShe won't be like Therraza unless she eats a fist full of gin soaked raisins every morning, and has a billion dollar inheritance. I know for a fact that she holds down a real job on merit, so both parts of that qualification are unlikely.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at July 21, 2005 12:23 AMok. sorry.
no more than hillary, probably.
Like Hillary? Has Jane Roberts announced that she's going to be co-justice?
Posted by: carter at July 21, 2005 12:44 AMYou still don't get it.
Posted by: oj at July 21, 2005 12:45 AMFeminists for Life is not a group dedicated to overturning Roe v. Wade, they're a group dedicated to convincing women not to have abortions.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at July 21, 2005 1:20 AMand when a particular woman remains unconvinced?
Posted by: lonbud at July 21, 2005 4:34 AMI get it -- there is so little to attack Roberts on that they have to resort to attacking his wife. What a bunch of craven cowards.
Posted by: jd watson at July 21, 2005 5:00 AMI guess they're upset Roberts doesn't keep his wife in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant. Next thing you know these women may actually want to drive a car or walk around town unescorted by male relatives or get an education.
The horror! The horror!
Posted by: bart at July 21, 2005 5:17 AMOJ: If they're stupid enough to go after him for being too tough on terrorists, then they're stupid enough to attack his wife for holding the majority view.
Posted by: David Cohen at July 21, 2005 7:13 AM"no more than hillary, probably."
I talked to a DC lawyer who knows her from work. That person said: "Until I saw her on television, I did not know that she was married to Judge Roberts."
Not at all like Hillary.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at July 21, 2005 10:14 AMDoes this mean it's OK to ask Hillary about Juanita Broaddrick?
Posted by: jim hamlen at July 21, 2005 11:16 AMTo answer your question OJ, yes indeed, they will. The they being the groups reflexively opposed to the nomination who are validated by opposition. It will create great tension for the Senate Democrats who will, partially, likely, see the damage such a move would do but who are now so beholding to these groups that they have to at least give apssing approval. Watch what Hillary does, not Schumer.
Posted by: Luciferous at July 21, 2005 11:36 AMYesterday's blog review showed quite a few negative references to the Roberts not being able to control their own kids. This about an adorable four year fidgeting and dancing around while the grownups just kept on talking. The picture of him is adorable. Young">http://gopvixen.blogs.com/gop_vixen/images/captwhcd11807200147scotus_bush_whcd118_1.jpg">Young Mister Roberts They should use on TV ads. Others critics thought Mrs. Roberts and the kids were dressed inappropriately -- too fiftyish was the majority opinion.
This kind of stuff is really lunacy and why the comparisons to Mrs. Kerry and Mrs. Clinton. Did I miss something? Is Roberts throwing his hat in the 2008 presidential ring? Why is his family fair game? What do we know of the other justices and their personal life or their families? Very little and that's precisely how it should be.
W is surrounded by strong women. Surely Mrs. Roberts was a major reason for her husband's selection.
Posted by: b at July 21, 2005 12:36 PMAs I'm currently dealing with a no-longer sweet and cooperative four year old myself, I have quite a bit of empathy for the Roberts.
erp;
If you want real lunacy, check this out. From one picture we have a long description of how Mrs. Roberts and her children are battered and abused.
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at July 21, 2005 1:01 PMerp,
Imagine the brouhaha if they wore flip-flops. And do you remember Andrew Giuliani at Rudy's first inaugural?
Posted by: bart at July 21, 2005 1:22 PMYes, I do, but Giuliani's son was quite a bit older and he was allowed stand at the podium and be annoying. Tragically for him, he wasn't adorable either.
Master Roberts was just doing what four year olds do when they simply can't stand still any longer. Actually, I thought the children's behavior was exemplary.
AOG, Four year olds aren't angels. They just look like them. Thanks for the link. I especially liked the comment that is was unlikely the kid would ever become a Hindu or a Buddhist. What insight? Words fail me.
AOG, thanks for that link. Cripes, what idiots at that site. Not only the wife beating comments but the comments on the judge's appearance a showing how stupid he is. Well, I guess #1 at Harvard Law and a 60 percent winning record at the supreme court means nothing if you have a vacant look in a couple of pictures.
Posted by: Bob at July 21, 2005 4:03 PMerp;
Well, I'm not sure about the "angel" part, but he frequently looks better than he sounds or acts.
I also wonder what the second guessers think the Mom should have done with the boy in front of the national press corps. Just imagine the nattering if she'd applied some appropriate discipline. My four year old, at least, doesn't have the time horizon to be cowed by threats of what will happen we when get home.
well, to all you brothers with four year-olds, let me give you a heads-up that there's little reason to expect marked improvement when they turn five.
i couldn't agree more that dragging Mrs. Roberts and the kids into it is pointless and asinine. however, i disagree with erp that a president's wife (or husband, or significant other of any stripe) and kids ought to be fair game.
Posted by: lonbud at July 21, 2005 5:12 PM
AOG, what an absolute doll. You're a lucky guy. My grandson, now seven, looked like that when he was four. Same impish look in his eye. You better get your eyes checked if you don't think he looks like an angel. Every age has its ups and downs, and I don't imagine Master AOG, Jr. is quaking in fear of any reprisals for naughty behavior.
lonbud, Are you being deliberating obtuse or are you really so poor a reader? My question was why Mr. Roberts' wife and children were being covered by the media, not in the same way they have traditionally covered judicial nominees, but in the way they have traditionally covered presidential candidates' families and I made the point that we know little about the families of federal and state judges or the justices of the Supreme Court, nor do I think it should be otherwise.
I, in no way, think families of any public figures are fair game, but candidates for office often drag their families behind them while campaigning thinking it softens their image. Remember all the family pictures of the Kerry's and the Edwards' we were treated to last summer, especially charming were the pictures of Mrs. Kerry lurching and staggering and making incoherent statements which were presented as insights or witticisms by the media.
We dodged the bullet again, thank God.
erp: perhaps you haven't been paying attention, but in rupert murdoch's 24/7 newscycle world, everyone and every thing is now fair game. the reason we don't know anything about the families of the other supreme court justices is that it's been several years since one has been replaced and the media's prurient cravings have actually gone parabolic in fairly recent times.
Posted by: lonbud at July 21, 2005 6:56 PMThe media doesn't decide who's fair game, the public does. Both parties got batted about for going after presidential kids. Democrats will pay a price for attacking the Judge's wife on abortion.
Posted by: oj at July 21, 2005 8:03 PMyou raise an interesting point, OJ. it's a bit of a chicken/egg question, though i'd say the public has devolved into its current state of prurience led by the media, and not the other way 'round. the only people who will pay a price with respect to the subjects of mr. roberts, his wife, and abortion are the women of our nation.
Posted by: lonbud at July 21, 2005 9:13 PMOnly Democrat women--because their party will pay.
Posted by: oj at July 21, 2005 9:27 PMlonbud, you have to meet a nicer class of women. Abortion isn't the burning issue among normal people. It mattered a lot more before birth control was generally safe and available and even then it wasn't an issue of national importance.
Yes, when abortion was illegal, there were individual cases of horrible mutilation and deaths, but there was also far less sexually transmitted disease and casual sex was frowned on for religious as well as moral and health reasons.
Abortion has become a political issue, not a medical one. In my opinion, it shouldn't be either legal or illegal. It should be a decision between a woman, her family and her doctor. There are many couples who want a baby desperately. There's no reason for an unwanted pregnancy to be aborted when there are plenty of other options, but girls are told that it's their right to do whatever they want with their bodies as long as what they want is to have abortions. The abortion business is very profitable.
The Left is losing on this issue because whether you're religious or not, it's clear that an unborn baby is just that, a baby. The horrible truth is that there are reasons why abortions are necessary but they aren't necessary millions of times a year. At a very upscale college with which I am very familiar, 25% of the women will have had an abortion at some time during their four year college experience. These girls have had every advantage, are savvy and sophisticated and know how to avoid pregnancy. It's just a careless disregard for human live that allows them to end the life of their baby because they were too lazy to avoid its conception.
There's a lot more to this issue and plenty has been documented about women who experience anguish and guilt for the rest of their lives. Abortion isn't a right. It should be a last resort available when all other avenues aren't available.
Posted by: erp at July 21, 2005 9:58 PMi agree there are plenty of issues people ought to be concerned about other than abortion, erp, but honestly, you guys around here just kill me.
Abortion isn't the burning issue among normal people. well, if you mean to agree that religous fanatics who think it's fine to assasinate doctors who perform abortions are not normal people, then, sure. however, it is clearly a burning issue for millions of otherwise seemingly normal people in this country on both sides of the political and religious divide.
and as one reads on in your comment, it becomes clear it's at least a smoldering issue for you as well.
and you almost had it, too, when you said It should be a decision between a woman, her family and her doctor. bang. end of story. why can't we agree to just leave it at that and turn our attention to more critical issues?
but no, people have to get into a whole judgemental place and decide who has more disregard for human life than the next person and who's been lazier than another. and make it legal, but an option only as a last resort available when all other avenues aren't available.
It should be a decision between a woman, her family and her doctor.
FWIW: George W. Bush has demonstrably far more careless disregard for human life than the average frightened upscale college girl who made a mistake.
Posted by: lonbud at July 21, 2005 11:45 PMHow many nations has she liberated? how many genocides halted?
Posted by: oj at July 21, 2005 11:53 PMlonbud: Get the voters to agree and you're home free.
Posted by: David Cohen at July 22, 2005 12:46 AMoj: mass murder is excused by the intention to liberate nations or halt genocides? were you the genius who came up with the "in order to save the village we had to destroy it" bit during vietnam?
dubya hasn't liberated anything. nor has he halted any genocide. in fact, he's responsible for far more deaths than the ones on 9/11, on whose desecrated memory he rides to rescue the world from terrorism.
and like every other endeavor in his sad and ineffectual life, it is one at which he will fail miserably.
Posted by: lonbud at July 22, 2005 1:41 AMlonbud:
Of course, mass murder is always justified to liberate nations and end genocide. It's just little practiced because we tend to be too craven to do so.
Posted by: oj at July 22, 2005 1:49 AMlonbud, do you think the people of afghanistan or iraq agree with you ? where are the mass protests in those countries, for the return of saddam or mullah omar ?
how much hate and anger do you have left over, for the real evil in the world ? on the evidence of your comments here, i would say "none".
Posted by: cjm at July 22, 2005 1:57 AMC'mon lonbud, don't be coy. Don't you believe that there's a good chance that W (or his puppet masters) planned 9/11, or at least allowed it to happen, so he could solidify his illegitimate hold on power and put into place PNAC's master-plan for global domination?
Posted by: David Cohen at July 22, 2005 7:03 AMlonbud, I'm not buying into your moral equivalency of putting low regard for human life on a scale of ten to one, with ten being monkeybushitlerhalliburton and one being the life-affirming abortionist.
Again you show that you are either being deliberately obtuse or you have a problem with comprehension, and please don't put words in my mouth. I have plenty of my own and don't need any of yours. I didn't say abortion should be legal, I said it shouldn't legal or illegal. It should be an individual medical decision that doesn't need to be okayed or kiboshed by either the federal or state government.
Yes. I am being judgmental. I think it's wrong to kill a baby. Bang. End of story.
And I'm condemning college girls or really any woman, other than victims of violent crimes, who chooses not to use birth control because they know they have the option of a free and easy relatively safe abortion without any strings or stigma attached, and I characterize it as laziness combined with a low regard for human life.
You characterize it as . . . scared college girls who made a mistake! Mistake? The devil made me do? Oh, the poor darlings. Of course they can't be responsible for their actions. Just go to the clinic and they'll make it all go away . . . until the next time.
lonbud's biggest problem is that a large plurality of Americans (probably 40-45%) feel that Bush has been too 'timid' in prosecuting the war.
And that number isn't going to change. More hits in London and elsewhere keep it up. A strike here in the US and it goes over 50% and stays there.
Posted by: ratbert at July 22, 2005 3:25 PMerp: i'm good with It should be a decision between a woman, her family and her doctor.
by all means, let's talk about more important things.
ratbert: i imagine you'll get your 50%+ in due course.
Posted by: lonbud at July 22, 2005 6:58 PMlonbud:
You can't both support abortion and claium to want to struggle against our Fallen natures. Abortion is revelry in our evil side.
Posted by: oj at July 22, 2005 7:01 PMThe left-wing will not be satisfied until (to use their own language) they have John Roberts barefoot in the Democrats' kitchen, washing dishes in his tailored pinstripes and silk tie, while Chuck Shumer and Ted Kennedy stand by holding his polished wingtips and Brooks Brothers socks and congratulate themselves on another Borking.
Posted by: Eric Preston at July 23, 2005 2:58 PM