![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Barbara Boxer (and NARAL) says that John Roberts "sided with violent abortion-clinic extremists."
No, he didn't. In his briefs, Roberts argued, rightfully, that a federal law designed to protect freed slaves from the KKK did not provide justification for federal intervention in the abortion clinic cases. He also clearly stated in the briefs that he felt that the protesters were trespassers who should be prosecuted to the full extent of the state law. That's a far, far cry from "excus[ing] violence against other Americans."
In this country, we have a tiered system of government. Not everything is "a federal case." Most criminal violations are violations against state law -- even crimes as serious as murder. Just because we're nervous about whether or not a state is going to enforce its own laws should not justify calling for federal involvement without specific legislation.
You think that abortion clinics need more protection? Urge Congress to pass a bill which deals specifically with that issue -- which is exactly what they did, with the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act. Don't use legislation that was drafted for a different purpose as a wedge to involve federal marshals.
It's a dangerous road to travel down, using federal legislation expansively to get the results we want. One that can be used by the cultural conservatives to their ends, as well as those of us who are fighting against them.
NARAL has lawyers on staff. These people should have understood the nuanced position that Roberts took, even if they disagreed with it. They had to have known they were misrepresenting his views.
I am concerned about the Roberts nomination, for reasons I mention here. But his work in this case is not one of them.* If we on the left seek bogeymen that we can inflate to scare people about the possibility of a Justice Roberts, we risk losing our credibility. Which will only hurt us down the road, when we are faced with an even more extreme judicial nominee when Renhquist leaves (or, more likely, dies in office).
Did we learn nothing from Robert Bork?
* In the article, Boxer talks about Roberts being critical of the Violence Against Women Act, as being an unwarranted expansion of federal law into an area traditionally dealt with by state law. Although I don't agree with Roberts on this, I don't think that it necessarily follows that he thinks women should not be protected, just that it should be the state's responsibility to do so. In any case, that was different from the situation in the abortion-clinic cases, where there really was no federal law.
No, he didn't. In his briefs, Roberts argued, rightfully, that a federal law designed to protect freed slaves from the KKK did not provide justification for federal intervention in the abortion clinic cases. He also clearly stated in the briefs that he felt that the protesters were trespassers who should be prosecuted to the full extent of the state law. That's a far, far cry from "excus[ing] violence against other Americans."
In this country, we have a tiered system of government. Not everything is "a federal case." Most criminal violations are violations against state law -- even crimes as serious as murder. Just because we're nervous about whether or not a state is going to enforce its own laws should not justify calling for federal involvement without specific legislation.
You think that abortion clinics need more protection? Urge Congress to pass a bill which deals specifically with that issue -- which is exactly what they did, with the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act. Don't use legislation that was drafted for a different purpose as a wedge to involve federal marshals.
It's a dangerous road to travel down, using federal legislation expansively to get the results we want. One that can be used by the cultural conservatives to their ends, as well as those of us who are fighting against them.
NARAL has lawyers on staff. These people should have understood the nuanced position that Roberts took, even if they disagreed with it. They had to have known they were misrepresenting his views.
I am concerned about the Roberts nomination, for reasons I mention here. But his work in this case is not one of them.* If we on the left seek bogeymen that we can inflate to scare people about the possibility of a Justice Roberts, we risk losing our credibility. Which will only hurt us down the road, when we are faced with an even more extreme judicial nominee when Renhquist leaves (or, more likely, dies in office).
Did we learn nothing from Robert Bork?
* In the article, Boxer talks about Roberts being critical of the Violence Against Women Act, as being an unwarranted expansion of federal law into an area traditionally dealt with by state law. Although I don't agree with Roberts on this, I don't think that it necessarily follows that he thinks women should not be protected, just that it should be the state's responsibility to do so. In any case, that was different from the situation in the abortion-clinic cases, where there really was no federal law.