Friday, Aug. 5, 2005 | 5:33 a.m.
WEEKEND EDITION
August 6-7, 2005
Many in the right-wing media and like-minded interest groups have pilloried Democrats and others for wanting to know more about the legal philosophy of federal judge John Roberts, President Bush's nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court. Because Roberts would replace Sandra Day O'Connor, who often was the swing vote on many pivotal cases -- upholding religious freedom, affirmative action and abortion rights among them -- there has been concern that he might undo those precedents. Legitimate questions about the judicial philosophy of Roberts, who has worked as a lawyer in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, have been characterized by most on the right as nothing more than an attempt to block Roberts' confirmation, however.
But that was then.
It now seems that some on the right are starting to have doubts about Roberts after it was revealed last week that he offered free legal advice to gay rights advocates on a landmark case. Roberts' pro-bono consulting laid the foundation for a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 1996 that protects homosexuals from state-sanctioned discrimination. That decision also paved the way for the Supreme Court's 2003 ruling that a Texas law banning sodomy was unconstitutional.
Providing legal advice to a gay rights group doesn't necessarily mean that Roberts agreed with his client's views, but his role has thrown upside-down how some on the right perceive him. "There's no question this is going to upset people on the right," right-wing radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh said Thursday. "There's no question the people on the right are going to say: 'Wait a minute. Wait a minute! The guy is doing pro-bono work and helping gay activists?"
No one can predict with certainty how Roberts would rule on a wide range of issues if he is elevated to the Supreme Court, but hopefully even those on the far right now understand why the Senate shouldn't be a rubber stamp for Bush and why the Senate should thoroughly examine Roberts' entire legal philosophy.
archive
