Considerably ironic, on the same week Eric Robert Rudolph, the right-wing, anti-choice killer is sentenced to life in prison, his apparent ideological twin is named as a Supreme Court nominee by President Bush. Only careful scrutiny will reveal whether Roberts will protect the right to choose, but looking at his obvious associations with radical, violent, anti-choice groups it appears that this is not the case.
Those who know John G. Roberts, Jr. say deep in his heart, he DOES want to overturn Roe v. Wade. For a jurist with almost no record and a known history of backing anti-abortion terror groups, an assurance may not be enough. Senators need to delve deeply into this man's personality and character. The hearings and process should be lengthy and not hurried, as some out of the mainstream politicians have suggested. Since Sandra Day O'Connor has pledged to remain on the Court until her successor is confirmed, there is no reason to rush such an important vote with such longstanding implications.
Democrats need to assure themselves that this man will preserve Roe before they allow him to proceed. Moderate Republicans like Specter, Snowe, Chafee, and the like need to consider carefully the implications of their vote, if it is found that Roberts is a radical, activist, anti-choice character. If this is the case, Republican moderates need to stand up and show backbone by rejecting a nominee who will cause a change in the court and the law that a massive majority of Americans do not support. It is not simply enough to defer to the President in his decision. The Senate is co-equal in the decision and if Roberts is not the man for the job, Republicans, as well as Democrats, have the obligation to the American people to send this nominee back and ask President Bush to nominate someone more in the mainstream.
Rights and freedoms Coalition