A 12-year-old girl was arrested, handcuffed, and detained by the police for eating a french fry in a Washington, D.C. metro station, as eating in metro stations is illegal. Eventually the case reached the D.C. Court of Appeals and the judges upheld the constitutionality of arresting a young girl for eating a french fry.
The Judge who wrote the majority opinion in this case is currently in line to become the next Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Judge John G. Roberts' confirmation hearings of the past week are marked primarily by his refusal to answer questions pertaining to his values or to specific Supreme Court decisions.
But it is clear from the Ansche Hedgepeth french fry case that "compassionate conservative" is not an appropriate description of this man. Roberts did say that who a judge is as an individual does not matter and that values should not dictate judicial decisions. "Judges wear black robes because it doesn't matter who they are as individuals," Roberts said during his confirmation hearings.
This point is particularly amusing given the number of conservative Judges who have recently altered their traditional, judicial garb in an expression of individuality or of their values. Roberts' late predecessor, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, altered his traditional Chief Justice garb in 1995 by adorning his black robe with bright gold stripes. Alabama Circuit Judge Ashley McKathan had the Ten Commandments embroidered in gold onto the front of his robes in 2004.
By altering their traditional, nondescript robes, these Judges have given the public a hint as to who they are as individuals and how that influences their decision-making on the bench. Roberts is correct in his assertion that who a judge is as an individual should not dictate who he is in a court of law; however, a judge's individual values clearly do guide how he or she views cases. This reality makes Roberts' evasion of questions pertaining to his values system unacceptable.
Not only does Roberts refuse to answer questions relating to his values by naming them irrelevant, but he also fails to answer questions relating to controversial Supreme Court decisions that have been made in the past. He argues that as Chief Justice he may be called upon to address these decisions again. Much like his assertion about a judge's absence of values in the courtroom, this is an admirable idea. It is actually a sham for concealing the political influence that Roberts has wielded in the past, however.
For example, Judge Roberts refused to say much on what his opinion is of the Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore. His refusal is ludicrous. Bush v. Gore is a resolved decision -- it is not one or similar to one that he might need to rule upon in the future. Roberts has refused to discuss his legal opinion of this decision because he was a Republican adviser in the court case. Refusing to elaborate on his opinion of and his role in the case that ultimately got the man who nominated him into the White House is a manipulation of his assertion of judicial fairness. The American public has a right to know how he was involved in Bush v. Gore.
In spite of his ambiguity around certain issues, there are some things that Judge Roberts cannot hide. In 1991, he signed a brief as Principal Deputy Solicitor General to the George H.W. Bush Administration that stated "we continue to believe that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overruled." Those who are comforted by his statement professing his belief in a constitutional right to privacy must recognize that this right to privacy will not apply to reproductive rights if Judge Roberts considers Roe v. Wade "wrongly decided."
When Interim President of Planned Parenthood Karen Pearl testified against Judge Roberts' nomination, she said, "accepting anything less than clarity (from him) would be irresponsible." As Americans and as Tufts students, let's not be irresponsible. Roberts' confirmation is not a fait accompli. As a community, we can act against his evasion of important issues and against his nomination.
Send a letter to Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy who is on the Judiciary Committee. Tell him that we demand answers from Judge John G. Roberts and refuse to accept his silence on issues pertaining to women's rights.
Fight now before this cunning nominee hoodwinks the American public and adds tremendous power to the movement to drag American social progress decades back in time.
Rachel Bergenfield is a freshman majoring in International Relations.
