For Immediate Release, Tuesday, Sept. 13, 2005
Contact: Ranit Schmelzer or Jenice Robinson, 202-588-5180, www.nwlc.org
NWLC: JOHN ROBERTS’ TESTIMONY DOES NOTHING TO DISPEL CONCERNS THAT HE HOLDS POSITIONS HOSTILE TO WOMEN’S RIGHTS
(Washington, D.C.) John Roberts’s testimony today did nothing to allay serious concerns that as the U.S. Chief Justice he would take positions that would weaken core women’s rights, the National Women’s Law Center said today.
“John Roberts was disingenuous in his response to questions about Title IX, elusive regarding his views on gender discrimination, and evasive in response to questions about Roe,” said Marcia D. Greenberger, Co-President of the National Women’s Law Center. “Far too much is at stake. Now is not the time for John Roberts to dodge and weave.”
Throughout his career, John Roberts has consistently developed, advanced and embraced legal arguments and positions that would undermine women’s most basic legal rights. Today, his crafted response to questions provided no reassurance that he has stepped back from these positions or that he would construe the law in ways that would uphold women’s most fundamental rights.
- Title IX -- John Roberts has repeatedly argued for a narrow interpretation of Title IX, but his testimony today attempted to hide the ball on his real positions. For example, in a 1982 Supreme Court case (Franklin v. Gwinnett County), he filed a brief arguing that no victim of sexual harassment should be allowed to sue for damages under Title IX. His response today to the committee did not acknowledge that his interpretation of the law would have left students without any remedy for sex discrimination. Roberts also denied any responsibility for his “strong agreement” with recommendations to restrict the coverage of Title IX. According to Roberts, he was merely parroting administration positions on this issue – an assertion at odds with the very language of his recommendations.
- Gender Discrimination– John Roberts wrote in a 1980s memo of a “perceived problem” of gender discrimination. When asked about this memo, he responded that gender discrimination is “a particular concern of mine and always has been.” But the question is not whether he cares about gender equity. It is whether he will apply the laws of this country to provide effective protection against discrimination. Nothing in his testimony provided reassurance.
- Equal Protection -- In another eighties-era memo, John Roberts wrote that gender is not subject to “heightened scrutiny.” He told members of the Judiciary Committee that he actually meant “strict scrutiny,” a standard that applies to racial discrimination – not gender. It’s hard to believe a lawyer of Roberts’s caliber would misuse legal terms in this way. And this is no mere semantic dispute -- levels of scrutiny affect how the Supreme Court reviews discriminatory policies and often make the difference between condoning or invalidating discrimination.
- Roe v. Wade -- As Deputy Solicitor General, John Roberts asked the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade. During today’s hearings, he refused to give senators straightforward answers about his views on whether the Constitution protects a woman’s right to choose and whether he would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. For example, when he was asked whether the right to choose embodied in Roe v. Wade is sufficiently embedded in our national culture that it should not be eliminated, he flatly declined to answer. When he was asked for his comments on Justice Ginsburg’s confirmation testimony that a prohibition on abortion is unconstitutional, he would not respond. And when asked whether the right to privacy applies to the beginning of life and the end of life, John Roberts again refused to answer.
###
