ACLJ Rebuttal to PFAW Report Opposing John Robertss Confirmation

On August 24, 2005, People for the American Way (PFAW) published a Report opposing the confirmation of John Roberts to the Supreme Court of the United States.  The Report is full of hyperbole and distortions. This ACLJ Rebuttal responds to the most egregious assertions made in the PFAW report and rebuts PFAWs outrageous claim that John Roberts would undermine the constitutional rights of all Americans. 

 

The thrust of PFAWs Report is that confirming John Roberts would jeopardize American civil liberties.  PFAW claims that while serving in the Reagan Administration, John Roberts showed a pattern of working . . . to undermine Americans rights and liberties rather than uphold them.  PFAW supports this insulting accusation by cobbling together news articles from left-wing media and by mischaracterizing Robertss writings as an attorney in the Reagan Administration.  Examining just a few of PFAWs claims suffices to illustrate the weaknesses throughout its Report.

 

1.         PFAWs claim:  Roberts would reduce access to justice, because he favors proposals to strip the federal courts of jurisdiction.

 

THE TRUTH:  As a young attorney, Roberts wrote a memorandum at the request of his superiors in the Reagan Administration discussing the constitutionality of a law narrowing the Supreme Courts authority.  Robertss conclusions were based on explicit language in the Constitution, and he opined that the law at issue was bad policy.

 

2.         PFAWs claim:  As Deputy Solicitor General, Roberts argued in Bray v. Alexandria Womens Health Clinic that the scope of a federal civil rights law should be narrowed.   

 

THE TRUTH: Roberts argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1871 should be interpreted just as the Supreme Court had always interpreted it. 

 

I was lead counsel in both Bray cases and John Roberts represented the United States.   The abortion facility owners in Bray claimed that opposition to abortion was the same as discriminatory animus against women.  Roberts and I opposed this far-fetched argument and the Supreme Court agreed.  Thus, the Court ruled that the Civil Rights Act of 1871 could not be applied to pro-life protesters.   

 

3.                  PFAWs claim: Confirming Roberts would threaten the Right to abortion.

 

THE TRUTH: A Roberts vote to overrule Roe v. Wade would not make abortion illegal.

 

As do all pro-abortion groups, PFAW practices demagoguery over the abortion issue.  The truth that PFAW will not tell is that if Roberts thinks Roe v. Wade is bad constitutional law, then he is in very good company.  Roe is a constitutional embarrassment to many prominent legal scholars who otherwise support abortion. The decision has generated scathing commentary; and even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a staunch abortion supporter, has said that Roe was heavy handed judicial intervention that was difficult to justify.

 

4.         PFAWs claim:  Roberts has a record of hostility to separation of church and state.

 

THE TRUTH: Roberts criticized the Supreme Courts decision holding that a moment of silence at the beginning of the school day constitutes an establishment of religion.

 

5.         PFAWs claim:  As a judge on the D.C. Court of Appeals, Roberts demonstrated deference to President Bushs extensive . . . abuses of executive power.

 

THE TRUTH:  Roberts joined a unanimous opinion in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, holding that Congress authorized President Bush to try a foreign terrorist captured during the Afghanistan war in a military tribunal.

 

The five claims rebutted above are merely a sampling of the distortions contained in PFAWs Report.  The 50-plus page report is nothing but a desperate attempt to smear one of the best-qualified nominees in the history of Supreme Court nominations.  It deserves no credence at all from either the American people or the United States Senate.