 |
 |
| Gay rights lawyers have expressed strong concerns that U.S. Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr.’s positions on abortion rights and separation of church and state in the early 1990s could be a predictor of his judicial positions on gay rights. (Photo by AP) |
|
|
| | |
| |
|
|
| | |
HOME > NEWS > NATIONAL NEWS
By: LOU CHIBBARO JR. and EARTHA JANE MELZE COMMENTS
 
continued...
called on to play roles to support their firm's work; the work is routine and as here, often goes without notice.
"This information, along with his much more extensive advocacy of positions that we oppose continues to raise significant questions for us."
But in an interview on National Public Radio Thursday afternoon, Walter A. Smith Jr., then head of Hogan & Hartson's pro bono department, said that Roberts was under no obligation to assist on the gay rights case and could have easily declined the matter.
Lambda Legal's director of education and public affairs, Michael Adams, told this publication that the story in the Los Angeles Times was the first that Lambda had heard about Roberts' involvement in Romer vs. Evans.
Joe Solomnese, the president of the HRC, also remains skeptical of Roberts.
"Judge Roberts' involvement in the case is noteworthy, but his participation adds little to our understanding of how he would vote on the court," said Solomnese in a news release. "The stakes are too high for guessing games over Judge Roberts' stance."
In 1990, Roberts co-wrote a brief on behalf of the Bush administration, arguing that Roe vs. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion, should be overturned. Roberts’ brief stated that the 1973 Roe decision has “no support in the text, structure or history of the Constitution.”
Constitutional scholars have joined gay rights lawyers in drawing a strong link between the Roe case and Lawrence vs. Texas, noting that both stem from the principle that the Constitution guarantees privacy rights to citizens that cannot be abridged by government. The same constitutional experts believe a reversal by the court on Roe could lead to the overturning of the Lawrence decision, which would set back the cause of gay rights for decades.
During confirmation hearings on his appointment to the federal appeals court, Roberts said the views he espoused while at the Justice Department were those of his client, the administration of George H.W. Bush, and not necessarily his own.
He also stated that Roe was “settled law” and nothing in his personal beliefs would prevent him from enforcing it. But as a Supreme Court justice, Roberts would be free to question even “settled law” like Roe and Lawrence, giving rise to the activists’ concern.
This week, more documents about Roberts’ views on Roe surfaced when the White House released more than 15,000 pages of Justice Department memos and legal papers that Roberts wrote or helped prepare between 1981 and 1982. Roberts, then in his 20s, served as a special assistant to Attorney General William French Smith, during the first two years of the Reagan administration.
According to the Washington Post, Roberts stated in various documents that he strongly supported the power of Congress to strip the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction over abortion, busing, and school prayer cases, even over the objection of conservatives within the Justice Department that such an end-run around the court was likely unconstitutional.
Other documents, the Post r
| 
