ifeminists.com: A central gathering place and information center for individualist feminists.   -- explore the new feminism --
introduction | interaction | information

ifeminists.com > introduction > editorials

The Leftist-Feminist Brief Against Nominee Roberts
July 27, 2005
by Carey Roberts

President Bush surprised everyone, including wife Laura, with his nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court of the United States. It seems the First Lady has been taking law classes during her spare time, making her qualified to advise the President on the importance of gender in judicial selections. "I would really like him to name another woman," she explained on NBC's Today show.

Everyone from Sandra Day O'Connor to the nattering nags at NOW had decided that the now-vacated seat was destined to be filled by a woman, regardless of her training, experience, or judicial temperament.

Why? Because "something is lost when there is only one female in the room," according to a weepy-eyed article in the Chicago Tribune. And what is that unique "something"? The article answers, it's that "special bond that mothers have with children."

That tender maternal bond no doubt explains why Sandra O'Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsberg have consistently voted to uphold abortion laws throughout their Supreme Court careers.

Bush's nomination of a white male represents more than a slap in the face to the affirmative action mentality. Mr. Roberts, you see, does not believe that true meaning of the Constitution lurks somewhere in the decrees of the International Criminal Court. Rather, his approach to interpreting the U.S. Constitution hews to the notion of "What you see is what you get" -- WYSIWYG in computer parlance.

When the U.S. Constitution was drafted, Americans were still smarting from the memory of King George's boot-heel tyranny. The bitter after-taste of that experience compelled our forefathers to strictly limit the powers of the nascent federal government. And they did it right up front, enumerating its responsibilities in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.

But the notion of enumerated powers of the federal government has become eroded. And now we're paying the price. Look at the draconian policies of government bureaucracies such as the Office of Child Support Enforcement or Child Protective Services, and you realize that's exactly what the delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention were seeking to avoid.

Roberts' constructionist views of the Constitution represent a direct threat to the Leftist creed, which seeks to highjack the federal government in order to impose its classless, genderless vision on the rest of us. To a Leftist, individual differences are an anathema that need to be rooted out by government fiat.

But it's the feminist Left that's really having a hissy-fit. According to the National Organization of Women, Roberts has long promoted an "anti-woman, anti-civil rights, and anti-worker agenda."

This guy must really be a monster. Yes, just see for yourself.

In a 1999 radio interview Roberts voiced his opposition to the Violence Against Women Act: "We have gotten to the point these days where we think the only way we can show we're serious about a problem is if we pass a federal law, whether it is the Violence Against Women Act or anything else." Obviously the Supreme Court nominee doesn't appreciate that Big Sister government should be the cure-all for our social ills.

In NCAA v. Smith, Roberts argued against Title IX, the law that shuts down men's athletic teams because not enough women have been signing up for synchronized swimming. What's wrong with imposing Soviet-style gender quotas on college sports programs, so long as they bring about gender equality?

But it's Roberts' discomfiture with abortion that has most provoked the Sisterhood. As Deputy Solicitor General, Roberts once argued in a brief to the Supreme Court that "we continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled."

Then there's the matter of Roberts' wife Jane, who served for four years as the executive vice president of Feminists for Life, a pro-life group. But folks are trying to pretend that does not reflect in any way on nominee Mr. Roberts' views on abortion. Both John and Jane are active members in their local Catholic parish.

Years ago the feminist Left came to realize that they would never achieve their socialistic goals if they had to rely on normal democratic processes. So their solution was to impose an abortion litmus test on the nominations process, seize control of the judiciary, and short-circuit the notion of government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

We should all be shedding crocodile tears over the impeding demise of judicial activism and the socialistic schemes that march under the red banner of progressive government.

ifeminists.com > home | introduction | interaction | information | about

ifeminists.com is edited by Wendy McElroy; it is made possible by support from The Independent Institute and members like you.