Business as Usual with Judge Roberts - Counterpunch 7/20

[Starfury]

Nothing really major here, but it gives an overview of some cases he's been involved with.

Straight Corporate with Pepto-Bismol Chaser
Business as Usual with Judge Roberts

By ALEXANDER COCKBURN
and JEFFREY ST. CLAIR

(...)

The prime lobby that should feel gratified by his nomination is of course Big Business, the protection of whose interests has been Roberts chief concern throughout his career, and the protection of whose interests has always been the prime concern of the US Supreme Court. Listen to the assessment of Boalt law professor and torture-defender, John Yoo: "Roberts is the type of person that business conservatives and judicial-restraint conservatives will like, but the social conservatives may not like. What the social conservatives want is someone who will overturn Roe v Wade and change the court's direction on privacy. But he represents the Washington establishment. These Washington establishment people are not revolutionaries, and they're not out to change constitutional law."

(...)

Roberts' record may be opaque when it comes to Roe v Wade but on corporate issues it's as clear as daylight. When he was deputy solicitor general he ran the government's case when the Supreme Court issued what was probably the most devastating ruling on environmental issues in the last generation. This was the Lujan v National Wildlife Federation decision in 1990. It tightly restricted the doctrine of "standing" which gives environmentalists the right to challenge destructive practices on federal lands.

It would be hard for Roberts to argue that he was just doing his job as a government lawyer. Returning to private practice from the Solicitor General's office, he was swiftly picked as counsel by the National Mining Association, which had noted his victory in the Lujan decision. On behalf of the coal companies Roberts wrote a legal brief arguing that local citizens in West Virginia had no right to bring lawsuits challenging the most destructive form of mining ever devised, mountain-top removal. Later, going through confirmation to the Appeals Court, Roberts was asked what had been his most significant cases in private practice. In his response he proudly highlighted his work for the coal companies.

Then, only months after his appointment to the federal Appeals Court bench Roberts once again tried to promote corporate destruction in the Rancho Viejo v Norton case, where the federal Fish and Wildlife Service had made a ruling in favor of the endangered arroyo toad and against a California developer. The DC circuit court ruled 2-1 in favor of the toad, with Roberts as the minority vote. He had argued, vainly, that there was no federal interest because the toad "for reasons of its own, lives its entire life in California."

(...)

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn07202005.html