Judge Roberts

[shmeep]

Sorry to get political here, but I heard something on C-SPAN radio this morning that disturbed me. It was part of the deliberation for the confirmation of Judge Roberts. Now, I've been pretty neutral about this appointment all along, figuring we could do worse and that this guy is a conservative replacing a conservative so we are maintaining the status quo. Now, however, I am appalled that this man is going to be our new Chief Justice. I heard a Senator stating that in 1982, Judge Roberts was strongly against providing an interpreter for an eight-year-old Deaf student. This was before the Americans with Disabilities Act, but there were still laws in place to provide whatever was necessary for disabled students to be educated, but Roberts didn't feel this was appropriate. Speaking as a person who interpreted in the public school system for six years, is currently at a government agency for the Deaf people here, and is married to a Deaf man, this hits very close to home. I found this article, at the National Association of the Deaf website: www.nad.org/site/pp.asp?c=foINKQMBF&b=1070079 It explains better than I can if anyone is interested.

I realize this happened in 1982, but during his hearing this week he was given every opportunity to explain (perhaps it was the opinion of his boss and he was just doing his job) or to recant, having learned and grown over the years. He did neither. This concerns me.

[housemouse]

admin said:

Now, I've been pretty neutral about this appointment all along, figuring we could do worse and that this guy is a conservative replacing a conservative so we are maintaining the status quo.

I felt pretty much the same way. But - with apologies to any conservatives out there - I always had this sneaking suspicion that there had to be more to the guy, Bush would never settle for a middle of the road conservative for Chief Justice.

admin said:

Now, however, I am appalled that this man is going to be our new Chief Justice. I heard a Senator stating that in 1982, Judge Roberts was strongly against providing an interpreter for an eight-year-old Deaf student. This was before the Americans with Disabilities Act, but there were still laws in place to provide whatever was necessary for disabled students to be educated, but Roberts didn't feel this was appropriate. Speaking as a person who interpreted in the public school system for six years, is currently at a government agency for the Deaf people here, and is married to a Deaf man, this hits very close to home. I found this article, at the National Association of the Deaf website: www.nad.org/site/pp.asp?c=foINKQMBF&b=1070079 It explains better than I can if anyone is interested.

I realize this happened in 1982, but during his hearing this week he was given every opportunity to explain (perhaps it was the opinion of his boss and he was just doing his job) or to recant, having learned and grown over the years. He did neither. This concerns me.

So there it is, there is something more their. I am going to read that article and try to fathom his reasoning, although I don't think that will be possible. What I am interested to find out is how he justifies this stance.

[shmeep]

housemouse said:

I am going to read that article and try to fathom his reasoning, although I don't think that will be possible. What I am interested to find out is how he justifies this stance.

Ah, Mouse. I can always count on you. But...justify his stance? That's the whole problem. He was given the opportunity to do just that and he declined. I would have loved to have heard this "justification" myself.

[maggiethecat]

I would urge everyone to follow Shmeep's link and read the article on Roberts.

Disturbing, to say the least.

[mlm828]

I probably have not been following the Roberts nomination as closely as I should have, mainly because it's just too depressing. As some Senators have pointed out, the man was so slippery and evasive in his testimony that no one really knows what we're getting. Was he just advocating a client's position or expressing his own views? About all we can hope for is that he will be a true conservative, meaning he will respect stare decisis and be careful about overturning established precedent. But, like others, I am very worried we may be getting an extreme conservative ideologue and activist. Perhaps the only hope is in the transforming power of high office. Remember how disappointed Eisenhower was in his appointment of Earl Warren as Chief Justice? In addition, as Chief Justice, Roberts will need to be a consensus-builder, not a divisive figure. And, as shmeep correctly points out, replacing Rehnquist with Roberts seems to be pretty much of a "wash."

Frankly, I am much more worried about the pending appointment of someone to replace Justice O'Connor. We in California are very worried Bush may appoint former California Supreme Court Justice Janice Brown, whom he appointed to the D.C. Circuit. For those who are not familiar with her, think about having another Scalia on the court. Very scary.

[housemouse]

mlm828 said:

Frankly, I am much more worried about the pending appointment of someone to replace Justice O'Connor. We in California are very worried Bush may appoint former California Supreme Court Justice Janice Brown, whom he appointed to the D.C. Circuit. For those who are not familiar with her, think about having another Scalia on the court. Very scary.

I agree 100% mlm. It was frightening enough when O'Connor retired, but then Bush having to replace Rehnquist, it is almost too much to comprehend.

I read the article Shmmep. I found it rather ironic that he used the term "vague" to describe the law in question. During his confirmation hearings Roberts proved to be the king of vague. It was also very interesting that he took issue with "judicial activism" - she typed stepping off her soap box...