From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:
On another topic, Roberts, who was nominated as a justice by President Bush last month, advised the White House to strike language from a description of a housing bill that referred to the "fundamental right to be free from discrimination." He said that "there of course is no such right."
Now, as I've written before, I understand that Roberts is an arch-Conservative and is not likely to support politically anything for which I stand. But I also believe that the country is ill-served by such a divisive figure, particularly given what I consider a great likelihood of Roberts being made Chief Justice one day.
It is true that there is no express right to be free from discrimination written into the Constitution. However, can Roberts really read the passage "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal" in the Declaration of Independence and not believe that the Founding Fathers at least intended a nation where unfair discrimination is not tolerated? Moreover, I believe that even if no such right is explicitly expressed, it still makes our society greater to have such an unexpressed right. I view it in the same light as the right to privacy; not explicit within the Constitution but still an essential part of the commonly-held understanding of the relationship between the government and the citizens of the United States.
Now, I know that many supporters of Roberts say that his writings as an advocate for the Reagan White House do not necessarily represent Roberts' views on the topics on which he was writing. I have it on good authority from several attorneys that lawyers often write briefs in defense of their client's interests that may not necessarily be held by said lawyer. Fine. But the very fact that Roberts chose to associate with Republican administrations throughout his career tells me that his judicial views must be similar to the Republican platform in most respects.
So far in Roberts' writings I've read examples of anti-choice, anti-women's equality and staunch pro-business interpretations of the law. This latest leaves me more convinced than ever that John G. Roberts is not the paragon of lawyers that the so-called "Liberal Media" has made him out to be. I firmly believe that Roberts is a judge whose nomination should be stridently opposed by our elected Democrats, especially given that, again, I believe him to be a prime candidate for Chief Justice one day.
If Roberts is Bush's "consensus pick", does anyone want to even speculate about whom he'll nominate next?
I don't; I want to sleep at night...