NATIONAL COALITION FOR THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN&FAMILIES 800 Compton Road, Suite 9224⚫ Cincinnati, Ohio 45231 (513) 521-6227 Fax (513) 521-6337 HelpLine: (800) 583-2964 www.nationalcoalition.org August 18, 2005 Dear Senator, For many years I have been disappointed in numerous decisions of the United States Supreme Court and other judicial components of our government. Too often, I see justices legislating from the bench and finding new interpretations and applications of our founding documents such as the Constitution. This has produced an environment of judicial activism and a rulership of our nation by unelected judges. Recently, President Bush has nominated John G. Roberts to the United States Supreme Court. I have studied Judge Roberts' personal and professional background and find that he is a brilliant jurist, a man of integrity and stands firmly against judicial activism and tyranny. Judge Roberts seems to be a strict constructionist who will interpret the Constitution and the laws of our land rather than legislate from the bench. I urge you to support the nomination of Judge Roberts to the Supreme Court. to demand an up-or-down vote by the end of September and to stand with President Bush in seeing that Roberts not only receives a just and fair hearing before the full Senate, but also is confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Sincerely, Ricks Rick Schatz President and CEO National Coalition for the Protection of Children & Families CC: Majority Leader Bill Frist Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter Senate Republican Conference Chairman Rick Santorum Senate Majority Whip Mitch McConnell Republican Policy Committee Chairman Jon Kyl Church Outreach Victim Assistance National Coalition for the Protection of Children & Families NATIONAL COALITION COMMENTS ON PRESIDENT BUSH'S July 20, 2005 For Immediate Release Contact: Francesca Jensen Director of Communications National Coalition for the Protection of Children & Families 513/521-6227, ext. 111 Cincinnati - The National Coalition for the Protection of Children & Families is encouraged by President Bush's recent U.S. Supreme Court nomination of U.S. Circuit Court Judge John Roberts. "Judge Roberts possesses not only the intellectual aptitude to fill the Supreme Court role, but also the commitment to strictly interpret the Constitution and not legislate from the bench," said Rick Schatz, president and CEO of the National Coalition. Judge Roberts, if elected by the Senate to the U.S. Supreme Court, will assume the position of retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. "It is in the best interest of our country to fill Justice O'Connor's vacancy as quickly as possible," added Schatz. “With Roberts' credentials as a D.C. Circuit Court Judge and previous clerk for chief justice Rehnquist, there is no reason for the Senate to prolong the confirmation process." Judge Roberts' final remarks last night at the nomination were especially encouraging: “I also want to acknowledge my children, my daughter Josie, my son Jack, who remind me every day why it's so important for us to work to preserve the institutions of our democracy." "Judge Roberts has a clear commitment to his children and family. I believe he will continue to protect the foundations and institutions of the Constitution by carrying this conviction with him to the Supreme Court," said Schatz. Testimony of Phyllis Snyder, President of the National Council Jewish Women On the Nomination of Judge John G. Roberts, Jr., to be Chief Justice of the United States September 14, 2005 We appreciate the opportunity to submit written testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee on behalf of 90,000 members and supporters of the National Council of Jewish Women (NCJW). NCJW is a volunteer organization, inspired by Jewish values, that works to improve the quality of life for women, children, and families and to ensure individual rights and freedoms for all through his network of 90,000 members, supporters, and volunteers nationwide. NCJW opposes the confirmation of Judge John G. Roberts, Jr. as Chief Justice of the United States. We have done so because we believe that only those nominees with a proven commitment to fundamental freedoms, including a woman's right to choose, should be confirmed to a lifetime seat on the federal bench. As Jews, we understand what it means to have fundamental rights and liberties stripped away. As women, we are also especially cognizant of the mandate to treat women equally under the law and to preserve their ability to make critical decisions about their own lives and bodies. We have decided to oppose Judge Roberts for many reasons, most notably because of his past record concerning the right to privacy and reproductive rights, his views on civil rights and state. Judge Roberts' testimony before the Judiciary Committee has provided few moments of clarity. In fact, it has reinforced the impression that Judge Roberts has put his considerable talent to work parsing the law to explain why an injustice cannot be corrected, rather than seeking to use the law to preserve the values embodied in our Constitution and its Bill of Rights. We did not take this position lightly. Much of Roberts' record is still shrouded in mystery because the White House refuses to release documents that would provide insight into the later years of Roberts' public career. But what we have learned to date causes us to believe that our basic rights may well be threatened by his views, however sincerely held or articulately expressed. As a political appointee in the Reagan Administration, Judge Roberts allied himself with efforts to overturn Roe v. Wade outright. While serving as Deputy Solicitor General in the Bush Administration, Roberts argued in Rust v. Sullivan (1991) to allow the federal government to bar doctors working in federally funded family planning programs from even discussing abortion options with patients. The brief he authored also argued that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided -- a question not even posed in the case. As Deputy Solicitor General, Roberts also argued in an amicus curiae brief filed in Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic (1993) that protesters from Operation Rescue and six other individuals who blocked access to reproductive health care clinics did not discriminate against Judge Roberts' personal opinions are of a piece with his legal advocacy. In documents released by the Reagan Presidential Library, Judge Roberts referred dismissively to the “so-called ‘right to privacy:" derided the conclusion in Griswold v. Connecticut that privacy is a fundamental constitutional right; and expressed approval of the idea of a mass funeral for fetal remains as "an entirely appropriate means of calling attention to the abortion tragedy." Not surprisingly, Judge Roberts refused to affirm a constitutional right to privacy during his confirmation hearing for the DC Court of Appeals. Now Judge Roberts has testified that he does find a right to privacy in the Constitution, but he still refuses to assert that it extends to the right to choose abortion or provide any information on his views on the scope of this right. While some will argue that a reversal of Roe v. Wade is highly unlikely, we believe that it would die a death of thousand cuts at the hands of a Chief Justice Roberts. Unfortunately, the history of litigation on Roe is one of regression, not progress or steadfastness, and there is every reason to believe that a Chief Justice Roberts would side with those seeking to narrow it further. But it is not only the right to choose that concerns us. Throughout his career, Judge Roberts has revealed a bias in favor of allowing government to sponsor and endorse religious expression. For example, he approved a 1985 speech by then-Secretary of Education William J. Bennett who opined that "[o]ur values as a free people and the central values of the JudeoChristian tradition are flesh of the flesh, blood of the blood," and that “our history has... |