EXCELLENT fact sheet on Roberts from MoveOn - FIGHT THIS NOMINATION!

[Nothing Without Hope]

(mods - this was received as an email, so 4-paragraph rule does NOT apply.)

Dear MoveOn member,

Last week, press aides at the White House made a furious round of phone calls: a number of major newspapers had printed that John Roberts was a member of the secretive far-right Federalist Society. Roberts denied "recalling" that he was a member, and so the White House demanded a correction. Retractions were printed. But just this morning The Washington Post released an internal directory proving Roberts served on the steering committee of the Washington Federalist Society chapter.(1)

This is not an isolated episode. The White House is banking on a strategy of hiding Roberts' right-wing views and focusing on his non-confrontational personality.(2) And so far, most newspapers and networks have bought in, spending a lot more time speculating about how easily Roberts will be confirmed than doing the investigative reporting that the country deserves.(3) To get more of the real journalism this issue demands we're going to have to ask for it.

Please take a minute to call or write the outlets where you have gotten your coverage of the Roberts nomination, and ask them to focus on the facts of Roberts' record—not on the administration's spin. You can find contact information for your news outlets here:

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=811

Roberts' record as a right wing partisan and corporate advocate poses many concerns about how his confirmation would threaten core rights. Here are some direct questions that we could use some better reporting on:

1) How would his years advocating, lobbying and then ruling in favor of corporate power affect his defense of the public interest?

Here's what we know:

• As a corporate lawyer Roberts fought to gut the Americans with Disabilities Act, denying lawful accommodation for workers injured over time as part of their job.(4)
  
• He helped a major car manufacturer avoid a recall when their seatbelts were found to violate federal safety standards.(5)
  
• Argued for the National Mining Association to overturn a ruling that restricted mountain top removal practices devastating to Appalachian communities.(6)
  
• In his brief tenure as a judge, he argued for a very limited view of congressional authority to regulate corporate excess that could threaten broad swaths of environmental protections, workers rights, and anti-discrimination laws.(7)

2) How would Roberts affect privacy rights currently protected by the constitution?

Here's what we know:

• Roberts argued to the Supreme Court that Roe v Wade should be "overruled".(8)
  
• He won a case blocking doctors in many cases from even discussing reproductive options with their patients.(9)
  
• He has ruled in favor of sweeping powers for the commander-in-chief in this state of perpetual war—with frightening implications for our civil liberties.(10)

3) How would Robert's partisan allegiance affect his judgment? (For example in cases like Bush v. Gore)

Here's what we know:

• He advised Jeb Bush during the Florida recount debacle.(11)
  
• As a lawyer for the Reagan and Bush Sr. White House, he advocated for right wing ideology over free speech,(12) religious liberty(13) and voting rights for minorities.(14)
  
• Roberts has been a life long partisan Republican, a claim the New York Times calls "indisputable,"(15) and has donated thousands of dollars to exclusively Republican candidates.(16)

Roberts' stealth candidacy for the Supreme Court is particularly dangerous because his personal qualities can be used to conceal a very hard line judicial philosophy. Here's how commentator E.J. Dionne put it:

"Judge John G Roberts Jr.. could turn out to be Antonin Scalia with a Washington Establishment smile... And he is David Souter turned on his head—a stealth candidate whose winning personality disguises intense conservatism, not moderation. Roberts could move the court well to the right yet grin his way through the confirmation process....All of which means that the next two weeks will be crucial in determining how the Roberts confirmation battle goes." (17)

It's also important to remember that facts of Roberts' record that are already clear were more than sufficient to earn him immediate endorsements on the far-right—even from many of the same people who said Alberto Gonzales was far too liberal:

• The violent anti-choice group Operation Rescue said, "We pray that Judge Roberts will be swiftly confirmed."(18)
  
• James Dobson of Focus on the Family called Roberts "unquestionably qualified"(19)
  
• Pat Robertson said Roberts was "at the top" of his own list of candidates for the court vacancy.(20)
  
• Tony Perkins of the ultra-conservative Family Research Council said "The President ... promised to nominate someone along the lines of a Scalia or a Thomas and that is exactly what he has done."(21)

The more facts that come out about Roberts' record, the clearer the danger he poses to our rights and freedoms. It's vital that the news media get back to the hard work of collecting and reporting on the facts of his record. We are facing the prospect of 30 or 40 years of Roberts on the Supreme Court, and we must apply the highest standard of scrutiny.

Together, we can help shift the coverage from the bottom up by contacting our news sources and simply asking them to focus on Roberts' record.

You'll find everything you need to contact local media below. It just takes a minute, but it could make a big difference. Please reach out today:

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=811
Thanks for everything you do,

- Ben, Micayla, Justin, Matt and the MoveOn.org Political Action Team
Monday, July 25, 2005

Sources:

1 The Washington Post, "Roberts Listed in Federalist Society '97-98 Directory," July 25th 2005http://www.moveon.org/r?r=812

2 The White House has already said it intends to deny Senate requests for information about Roberts work for the Reagan and Bush administration that would clarify his role in undermining the Voting Rights Act, among other key issues. See:
The Associated Press, "White House Won't Show All Roberts Papers," July 24th 2005
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/072405X.shtml

3 The day after Roberts was nominated the President's spin appeared as news headlines across the country, like "Roberts is Well Liked"<3a> "Not a Battle"<3b> "Nominee Known for his Modesty."<3c> That day over 40 separate articles mentioned his son's televised antics during the nomination, while less than 10 cited what was probably the most significant opinion he wrote as a judge—one that seriously threatens vast swaths of environmental protections, workers rights, and civil rights.<3d>

<3a> Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service, "Roberts is well liked, but his judicial record isn't clear," July 20th, 2005
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=824

<3b> The Los Angeles Times, "A Fight, Maybe, but Not a Battle; Roberts should appeal to staunch conservatives yet be insulated from fierce opposition," July 20th 2005
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=813

<3c> Ventura County Star, "Highly Regarded Nominee Known for his Modesty," July 20th 2004
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=814

<3d> Lexis-Nexis search for articles posted on July 20th, 2005 with the terms "John Roberts and Viejo" and "John Roberts and Jack".

4 The Associated Press, "Atty. Roberts Often Worked for Industry," July 21st 2005
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=815

5 The Los Angeles Times, "A Resume Strong on Business," July 22nd 2005
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=816

6 The New York Times, "As a Lawyer, Court Nominee Was Considered a Skillful Advocate for Corporate Clients," July 21st 2005
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=825

7 New Orleans Times Picayune, "Hapless toad' case fuels fears of Roberts' foes," July 22nd 2005
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=817

8 The Associated Press, "Roberts, on the issues," July 24th 2005
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=818
Roberts actual argument can be found in: "Brief for the Respondent at 13, Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1991)

9 The New York Times, "In Pursuit of Conservative Stamp, President Nominates Roberts," July 20th, 2005
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=819

10 Data from Federal Election Commission
http://newsmeat.com/judiciary_political_donations/John_G_Roberts.php

11 The Miami Herald, "Roberts Gave GOP Advice in 2000 Recount," July 21st 2005
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=826

12 Roberts, serving as Deputy Solicitor General under President Bush Sr. argued to the Supreme Court for the unconstitutional criminalization of flag burning as political speech. See:
The Los Angeles Times, "Bush Leans Right in Court Pick," July 20th 2005.
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=820

13 Also as deputy solicitor general in the first Bush White House, Roberts drafted a key legal brief urging the Supreme Court to scrap decades of settled church-state law and uphold school-sponsored prayer at public school graduation ceremonies and other forms of government-endorsed religion. See: Americans United for Separation of Church and State, "Senate Should Reject Confirmation Of John G. Roberts To Supreme Court,"
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=821&id=

14 The Boston Globe, "Civil Rights Groups Cite Concerns Over Roberts," July 22nd 2005
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=822

15 The Capital Times, "Bush Picks and Activist," July 20th 2005
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=827

16 The Nation, "The Stakes in Roberts' Nomination," July 20th 2005
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=828

17 The Washington Post, "Beware the Charm of Judges", July 21st 2005
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=823

18 The Los Angeles Times, "Supreme Court nominee's wife an anti-abortion voice," July 23rd 2005
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/3278758

19 Newsmax.com "Dobson: 'Roberts Unquestionably Qualified," July 20th 2005
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/7/20/201458.shtml

20 The Free Lance-Star, "Virginians rate Roberts' record," July 21st 2005http://www.fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2005/072005/07212005/116430

21 The New York Times, "The Strategy for a Successful Nomination: Disarm Opposition," July 20th 2005
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/20/politics/politicsspecial1/20bush.html

PAID FOR BY MOVEON.ORG POLITICAL ACTION
Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.

(ed. to highlight media contact info)

[realFedUp]

1. kick for info...thx

[paineinthearse]

2. Kicked, nominated and bookmarked!

A great reference post, thanks!

[paineinthearse]

3. Question: Which Senate Dems have come out in opposition to Roberts?

I've been away for several days, I presume my senior Senator will be at the forefront, but have any others joined him?

[Nothing Without Hope]

4. Good question - the Kerry email I got as a reply to mine opposing Roberts

is carefully non-forthcoming:

Dear XXXXXXX:

Thank you for your interest in our
Supreme Court. Evaluating the President's
judicial nominees is one of the Senate's most
important constitutional functions. It is
part of a system of checks and balances that
was established by our Founding Fathers to
ensure the quality of federal judges.

A lifetime appointment to the federal
bench is a very serious matter-particularly
an appointment to the Supreme Court. I take
my responsibility of giving "advice and
consent" very seriously. I believe that a
Supreme Court Justice must be able to
thoughtfully and responsibly uphold our
Constitution and our federal laws. They must
approach decisions in an impartial and non-
partisan manner, and they must respect our
Constitution's protection of individual
rights and liberties.

I have consistently voted for jurists
that exemplify these qualities and against
jurists who are ideologically driven and
intellectually inconsistent. I will continue
to do so in the future to ensure that only
our nation's best and brightest legal minds
end up on the federal bench.

Thank you again for your interest in
this issue.

Sincerely,

John F. Kerry
United States Senator

[Nothing Without Hope]

5. The Ted Kennedy email came a couple of days earlier and is more

negative and more specific about Roberts, but does not outright oppose him:

(from an email)
Dear XXXXXXX,

Now that President Bush has nominated John Roberts, the Senate and the nation face the critical task of understanding what kind of Supreme Court justice he would be - there are many questions that need to be answered.

During the confirmation process, the Senate must find out whether he will be on the side of basic rights and individual liberties or if he will side with powerful special interests.

Mr. Robert's brief public record raises several serious and troubling questions. Senators must ask those questions for the American people--and ensure that we receive honest and complete answers. Our oath of office requires no less.

Over the past two weeks, thousands of concerned Americans have submitted personal stories that emphasize the importance of this process. Each one details a way the Supreme Court affects our lives--and the lives of our children and grandchildren.

We can define the importance of this debate with our own words. Together, we can combine our voices and elevate the debate - to show the real-world impact of decisions made by the highest court in the land. Here are some examples:

Theodore of Georgia:

"I shadowed the first black undergraduate at FLU in 1962-63. Maxwell was admitted in the Fall of 1962 and my job was to see that he survived the year. It was not easy, but he survived. I will never forget it. We must not stop or slow this type of progress."

The battle has been brewing for months. Right wing groups boast a war chest of $20 million and counting. They will turn any confirmation process--no matter who the nominee is--into a political football, ignoring the best interests of the nation in the hopes of imposing their extreme views on our independent judiciary.

They might have the money, but we have the truth. No matter what they spend, they will never match the powerful case that thousands of citizens have already made:

Greta of California:

"I am a teacher for students with severe physical and mental challenges. When I first started teaching in the public schools eight years ago, the district was just beginning to provide wheel chair access to the bathrooms. It was an important moment for these children to have access to the bathrooms … We need a judge that will uphold their fundamental rights."

During the hearings, Roberts was evasive about his views on equal opportunity, desegregation, criminal justice, and the right to privacy. We cannot let this evasion happen again.

It's up to us to make sure the facts are known and that the voices of the American people rise above the partisan fighting and special interest money.

The candor and insight of your stories inspire me. Together we will make a case for the American people. Thank you so much.

Sincerely,
http://www.tedkennedy.com.nyud.net:8090//uploads/EMK%20signature.gif
Senator Edward M. Kennedy

P.S. - Everyone has something to say about the importance of the Supreme Court--and every new voice makes a difference. Please ask your friends and family to join us and share their own stories:

http://www.tedkennedy.com/morestories

[paineinthearse]

8. This was posted to DU a few days ago (Ted Kennedy)

This is a definitive statement, are any other Dems sticking their necks out?

Senator Kennedy’s Statement on the Nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court

http://tedkennedy.com/journal/155/senator-kennedys-statement-on-the-nomination-of-john-roberts-to-the-supreme-court

[Nothing Without Hope]

10. As in the email, he's saying the Senators should NOT be rubber stamps

and that there IS cause for concern that Roberts might be partisan and ideological. But he's not saying he already opposes Roberts, he's saying there are serious questions that Roberts must answer during the hearings.

Seems to me that even if he DOES already oppose Roberts, it's politically wise not to come out with a firm statement to that effect before the hearings are completed. Looks like that's what Kerry and Kennedy are doing.

[paineinthearse]

15. Barbara Boxer's position

Last Tuesday, President Bush nominated Judge John Roberts of the U.S. Court of Appeals to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the U.S. Supreme Court.


When Justice O'Connor retired, the court lost a voice of moderation. Justice O'Connor held the center of the court together, and provided the key swing vote in bold decisions by the court to protect fundamental American values. Her retirement leaves critical issues like the right to privacy, separation of church and state, civil liberties, and environmental protection hanging in the balance.


With so much at stake, the American people have a right to know if Judge Roberts will continue Justice O'Connor's legacy of moderation -- or if he will be an extremist judge who will legislate from the bench and overturn the laws that protect our most basic freedoms.


The truth is, we still know very little about Judge Roberts. He has been an appellate judge for only two years, and he lacks a lengthy record. While many have praised Judge Roberts, the wild adulation he has received from right wing groups should concern all of us. For instance, Judge Roberts has said that he considers Roe v. Wade to be "settled law," yet the radical anti-choice group Operation Rescue praised President Bush for "being a man of his word by appointing a judge that will respect the Right to Life." Just what does the right wing know that we don't?


Judge Roberts is a young man. At age 50, it is possible that he will sit on the court for the next 30 years or more. The stakes could not be higher. His decisions will affect generations of Americans.


In the coming weeks, it will be the responsibility of the Senate under its constitutionally-mandated power of "advice and consent" to carefully and deliberately review Judge Roberts' record, temperament, and commitment to American values. As my friend and colleague Senator Leahy has said, "No one is entitled to a free pass to a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court."


The "advice and consent" of a new Supreme Court Justice is one of the most solemn responsibilities of the United States Senate. It is critical that the American people learn about Judge Roberts' views on privacy, a woman's right to choose, civil liberties, environmental protection, and many other issues, so that we can make an informed decision about whether Judge Roberts deserves to be placed on the highest court in the land.


We all have a role to play in this critical process -- you and I and millions of our fellow citizens, to examine this nomination closely and make our voices heard. That's exactly what I plan to do -- and I need you with me, every step of the way.


I'll be writing to you much more over the days and weeks ahead. Thank you for your continued support.


In Friendship,





Barbara Boxer

[Nothing Without Hope]

17. Well put. Like Kennedy and Kerry, she's saying there are important

qyestions that must be answered by Roberts. I especially liked this part:

The truth is, we still know very little about Judge Roberts. He has been an appellate judge for only two years, and he lacks a lengthy record. While many have praised Judge Roberts, the wild adulation he has received from right wing groups should concern all of us. For instance, Judge Roberts has said that he considers Roe v. Wade to be "settled law," yet the radical anti-choice group Operation Rescue praised President Bush for "being a man of his word by appointing a judge that will respect the Right to Life." Just what does the right wing know that we don't?

[understandinglife]

6. Thank you for posting this important information.

Peace.

www.missionnotaccomplished.us

[AuntiBush]

7. Kicked for Night Crowd!

[NoSheep]

9. Thank you for the information.

We CAN change the world!!!!:bounce:

[Nothing Without Hope]

11. kick n/t

[Nikki Stone 1]

12. Operation Rescue: "We pray that Judge Roberts will be swiftly confirmed."

That's enough for me.

Kicked and nominated.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[paineinthearse]

16. EugeneDebs

Welcome to DU :hi:

Do I know you from another forum?

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Nothing Without Hope]

18. Welcome to DU, EugeneDebs!

I will read your long and thoughtful post and make my comment on it later. In the meantime, it's good to welcome you to the Forums! :hi:

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Pool Hall Ace]

14. Oh yeah, that does it for me too.

Kick :kick:

[Nothing Without Hope]

19. kick n/t

[Nothing Without Hope]

22. kick for those who haven/t seen this yet n/t

[rocktivity]

23. Curse you, Newsweek--this is all your fault

"Corrections" were "demanded" and "retractions were printed?" Of WHAT?

Either Roberts was a member of the organization or he wasn't. If there's evidence that the story is false or fraudulent, then by all means retract it. If it's incorrect, print the correction and an apology. If it's incomplete or presented out of context, print a clarification. Claiming amnesia doesn't make a story untrue, incorrect, OR incomplete--it's a followup at best.

But I'm not saying that the Bush White House's claim to Roberts' amnesia should not have been reported. It absolutely should have been, but for what it REALLY was--NEWS.

:headbang:
rocknation