ACLU: Their Article on John Roberts

The original article may be found Here

WASHINGTON -- The American Civil Liberties Union today expressed deep concern about some of the civil liberties positions advocated by Judge John Roberts, President Bush's choice to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court.

While serving as principal deputy solicitor general from 1989-1993, he authored briefs calling for Roe v. Wade to be overruled, supporting graduation prayer, and seeking to criminalize flag burning as a form of political protest."All these positions were rejected by the Supreme Court," said Steven Shapiro, the ACLU's National Legal Director. "But the Supreme Court remains closely divided on many of these questions."As a senior Justice Department official, Roberts was in a position to help shape the government's legal positions as well as represent them.

At a minimum, the Senate should determine the extent to which the positions taken in these briefs also reflect Roberts's personal views.
Judge John Roberts was appointed to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in May 2003. He received his undergraduate and law degrees from Harvard University and clerked for Justice Rehnquist. He served in a number of positions in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, including as principal deputy solicitor general from 1989 to 1993.

"The Supreme Court has played a pivotal role in advancing freedom," said Anthony D. Romero, ACLU Executive Director. "Without the Supreme Court, the South would still be segregated, illegal abortions would be claiming thousands of lives, the indigent would have no right to a lawyer, and lesbian and gay Americans could be imprisoned for their private sexual conduct."

"The stakes could not be higher," Romero added.

The ACLU will only oppose a Supreme Court nominee on a majority vote of its 83 person national board.

I find this article a bit funny because the only dirt the ACLU could find on John Roberts was that he wanted to outlaw the burning of our country's flag in protest and that he wanted to allow a graduation prayer.
The ACLU says that they want to protect the liberties of all as well as fight against religious indifference, but I guess burning the flag and taking away graduation prayers does not take away the liberties and rights of many?

If it were my graduation and there was not allowed to be a graduation prayer/blessing because of the ACLU I would be more than angry and feel that my rights to a prayer were being taken away. If some members of the graduating class are not Christian it still wouldn't matter, being blessed by a person or being prayed for by others should never be insulting even if the person is from another religion.

The burning of the American Flag in protest is a difficult subject for me. Personally I believe that it is wrong but it is not always wrong. Before you all start getting outraged please let me explain. If the government is doing something very wrong and or harmful to someone or a group of people I could understand the logic behind burning the flag by that group of people. They would feel that their government was betraying them and they would want to show that they believed the country has fallen, by burning the flag. I think that if a person wants to burn an American Flag we should let them. The material of that flag being burned is not going to affect or tarnish what it stands for and we should simply pay no attention to the people burning the flag, most likely they are just out for attention and we should not give it to them.

But, back to John Roberts. I believe that he is a more than qualified man for the job. His past records, experience, outstanding history at Harvard, and views make him a prime canidate for the job. I find relief in the fact that this article is the only thing the ACLU could throw at Roberts.