In search of an Honest Democratic Argument Against John Roberts…

…because you won’t find one in Sunday’s Projo from Democratic party chairman Howard Dean. Here is the start of what is supposed to be the substance of Dean’s rant…

The consistent mark of Roberts’s career is a lack of commitment to making the Constitution’s promise of equal protection a reality for all Americans — particularly the most vulnerable in our society. He has opposed laws protecting the rights of girls to have the same opportunities in sports as boys….

The case he is referring to, I believe, is NCAA v. Smith. Sports Law Blog has a short summary here
[H]e successfully defended the National Collegiate Athletic Association (“NCAA”) against a lawsuit by Renee Smith, a law school student who alleged that the NCAA, when it refused to allow her to participate in postgraduate intercollegiate volleyball, discriminated against her because of her sex.
The ruling in the case revolved around some technical issues about whether the NCAA itself is subject to Title IX regulations.
Now, ignore the fact that Roberts was representing his client’s position. And ignore the fact that, in 1999, the Supreme Court unanimously agreed with the position advocated by Roberts. Which Neanderthal Supreme Court justice do you suppose wrote the opinion concurring with Roberts’ position? The answer is Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Following Howard Dean’s reasoning, Ruth Bader Ginsburg opposes laws protecting the rights of girls to have the same opportunities in sports as boys.
Are the Democrats telling us that even Ruth Bader Ginsburg is too far to the right to be part of the mainstream? (Maybe the Democrats consider openly Marxist judges, like Rhode Island superior court judge Stephen Fortunato, to be the true representatives of the mainstream). Or are the Democrats telling us that they are not even going to bother with honest arguments against Judge Roberts and that they will say anything to obstruct qualified judicial nominees who don’t have the right political credentials?

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
SI Conservative
18 years ago

Since liberals can’t make an honest case against Judge Roberts, about an honest conservative case against him?

18 years ago

Sadly, despite a bit of bipartisan handwrenching over the Kelo decision, I doubt the following critique of Roberts’s understanding of property rights would ever be considered a Democratic argument, although it is honest: John Roberts: A Supreme Property Rights Disaster In The Making By James S. Burling September 1, 2005 After a term marked by the Supreme Court’s utter contempt for property rights, those of us who happen to think there is something special about allowing old widows to keep their homes, were not prepared for an even more bitter defeat. Yet, that is what President Bush handed us, with the nomination of John Roberts. The battle over property rights is not a conservative versus liberal thing. It’s more a struggle between those who believe in the power of the state to dictate how we get to use our land and homes, versus those of us who believe that the state has no business destroying our right to make reasonable use of our property. That is because when government can go about destroying, with impunity, our ability to use property, none of our liberties can be safe. As James Madison put it: “Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.” This spring, the Court handed down a series of cases that stand for the proposition that today in America, no man (or widow) is safe. In a case out of Hawaii, the Court held that courts had to defer to a Legislative scheme to reduce gas prices, by controlling the rents paid by gas stations – even though it was proven in federal court that the scheme would have no such economic effect. In a case out of San Francisco, the… Read more »

Show your support for Anchor Rising with a 25-cent-per-day subscription.