Roberts’ personal decisions under attack?
As a woman, I’m shocked and dismayed that in this day and age, a man’s right to control millions of women’s rights to make their own personal medical and moral decisions is apparently being examined during the process designed to examine a candidate’s worthiness for that office.
White House Won’t Show All Roberts Papers By Douglass K. Daniel AP 07/25/05
WASHINGTON — John Roberts worked for two Republican administrations, offering private legal assessments that have yet to be opened to historians or the public. Now that Roberts is President Bush’s choice to join the Supreme Court, some Senate Democrats want to see the documents he produced _ all of them.
No, responded one White House representative. We’ll see, said another.(07/25/05 WaPo Daniel)
cont’d
Some records already are available to the public at the presidential libraries of Ronald Reagan, in Simi Valley, Calif., and George H.W. Bush, in College Station, Texas. Others have yet to be cleared for security and personal privacy by archivists and, under law, by representatives of the former administrations and the current president.
The Senate Judiciary Committee has yet to ask for such material for its hearings. But some Democrats, including Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, have urged the White House to release “in their entirety” any documents written by Roberts.
Citing privacy and precedent, Fred D. Thompson, the former Tennessee senator guiding Roberts through the process on behalf of the White House, said Sunday the Bush administration does not intend to release everything. (07/25/05 WaPo Daniel)
Seriously, shouldn’t the awesome responsibility of controlling millions of women’s rights to make their own personal medical and moral decisions be a private one, between a branch of government and her judge?
You’d think so. And you’d be wrong.
Apparently, there’s no end to the fanaticism, selfishness and downright muleheadishness of women proceeding on the notion that they not only have a right to decide their own lives, but a say in who represents them in government.
It’s ugly, folks. And at least a few members of the Democratic party who don’t hold women responsible for the party’s failings appear willing to endorse this dangerous two-centuries old trend.
MR. RUSSERT: Democrats are saying they need to know more about John Roberts, and are suggesting that he worked as–in the solicitor general’s office, he worked as a–in the White House counsel’s office. They’d like to see his memo, some of his paperwork. Will that be provided by the Bush administration? .
MR. THOMPSON: […] It’s the client’s privilege to waive; it’s basically up to the White House. But the White House has gone along with what all living solicitors general have taken a position on, and that is this is a bad idea. […]
MR. RUSSERT: Has anyone on the White House staff, anyone involved in the vetting or interviewing process asked him about his views on Roe vs. Wade?
MR. THOMPSON: No. .
MR. RUSSERT: Nobody?
MR. THOMPSON: No. I mean, you know, I’m not privy to every conversation, but I’d be shocked and amazed, and I’ve been assured that they have not. […] (Meet the Press, July 24, 2005)
Despite Mr. Thompson’s assurances that the reproductive rights of half the population didn’t even come up, the appointed President’s appointee was questioned by — hang on to your hats — the woman judge retiring from the SCOTUS.
Despite a shift in law schools and the legal professions towards women outnumbering men, the unwritten law that holds the highest court in the land belonging, by right, to men is being questioned during the process for questioning it.
MR. RUSSERT: Sandra Day O’Connor, who is leaving the court, had this to say. “He’s good in every way, except he’s not a woman. I am disappointed, in a sense, to see the percentage of women on our court drop by 50 percent.” Will that be an issue?
MR. THOMPSON: Oh, I doubt it. I mean, the question is whether or not this nominee is qualified. And those issues that you mentioned are decisions that the president will make. And he, in this instance, his–I think chosen someone not based on any criteria, other than someone who he feels like is extremely well-qualified and is a guy who’s excelled academically, he’s excelled professionally. He got letters signed by 150 lawyers, Democrat, Republican, and otherwise, saying that he is one of the most highly respected public advocates in the nation; that kind of a person who will apply the law and the Constitution, as it’s supposed to be applied. And that’s all you can really ask, I think, of a nominee.
Well, call me contentious, but I can think of way more questions to ask of such a candidate. For example, in the absence of a trail of written opinions, the question: Why don’t you answer the fucking question? is one question that comes to mind.
And it appears my radical stance that the process of representative, responsible government be transparent to the public it purports to represent has at least one subversive proponent already holding office.
SEN. DURBIN: […] [John Roberts] needs to prove that he is worthy of a lifetime appointment to the highest court of the land, the court that really stands as the last refuge for the rights and freedoms of the American people and that he will serve there most likely, if approved, 20 or 30 years. […]
SEN. DURBIN: I would like to hear from him as to whether or not he has at least thought through or struggled with this decision on the future of reproductive rights in this country. I’d like to hear from him that even if he might disagree on a variance of Roe vs. Wade, that when it comes down to the basics, when it comes down to right of privacy, he will acknowledge that is part of our right and our legacy as Americans and that he would acknowledge, as well, that this is an issue of personal freedom. So it isn’t that I want to pin him down on this so much as understanding the thinking that would go behind the next decision.
. MR. RUSSERT: But as he said, Senator, “I believe it should be a decision made by the states,” which is what you said in 1983. Would that disqualify him?
SEN. DURBIN: […] Just a few months ago in Congress, we were embroiled in a controversy over the tragedy of Terri Schiavo. Here was a family making a decision that hundreds of families across America have made today about a loved one and whether she would continue to receive certain medical support. The decision of some–in fact, many on the same side politically as the president–was that the government should step in, the federal court should step in, into that hospital room to make that decision for the Schiavo family. So what I’m saying to you is this is an issue of privacy and freedom that will continue to come back to us. I need to know, most importantly, from Judge Roberts, what drives him on these decisions? Where are his values? […]
MR. RUSSERT: If he said he did not see a right of privacy in the Constitution, would that…
SEN. DURBIN: I couldn’t vote for him. .
MR. RUSSERT: That would disqualify him?
SEN. DURBIN: It would disqualify him in my mind.
MR. RUSSERT: And how specific will you get on your questions about Roe vs. Wade?
SEN. DURBIN: Oh, I might get very specific, but I’ve had an experience with him before. He wasn’t that specific in his answers when he was up for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. But I’m going to try, as best I can, to stay in that acceptable area where we do ask questions that he can answer. And I think if we stick to questions of constitutional values and traditional philosophy, we can find out whether he is truly going to be balanced. (Meet the Press, July 24, 2005)
I know that a group of men deciding women’s rights and abilities to decide their own lives is a vulnerable time for men. Men’s right to control women can often be beset with complexities and difficulties I can’t begin to imagine.
Indeed, I have often been waved away from meddling in the public debate, the apparent prevailing attitude being that in the heirarchy of political priorities today, men’s discussions about women’s bodies deserves more respect than women’s rights to control their own bodies.
I admit I’ve been slow on the uptake that this needs to change. Fellas, any advice on how I can be more sensitive about this important issue?
(crossposted at dKOS)