| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
07 Sep 2005 04:11:20 PM |
| Object: |
Nominee's stance less clear on key issues |
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-09-06-compare-box_x.htm
Nominee's stance less clear on key issues
By Joan Biskupic, USA TODAY
Predicting how the Supreme Court will change if federal judge John Roberts
is confirmed as chief justice is difficult, in part because much of his
public record stems from his work as a lawyer who represented the
conservative positions of the Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush
administrations. (Related story: Rehnquist, Roberts compel comparisons)
Chief Justice William Rehnquist, meanwhile, was a consistent conservative
vote on the court. A look at how their records compare on key issues:
Abortion/ women's rights
Rehnquist. Voted against the court's 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade, which made
abortion legal nationwide. Opposed abortion rights in subsequent cases,
including a 1992 dispute that affirmed Roe.
Roberts. As a lawyer in the George H.W. Bush administration, signed a brief
that said, "Roe was wrongly decided." Roberts has never made public his
personal views on abortion rights.
Affirmative action
Rehnquist. Voted against state and federal programs intended to give women
and racial minorities a boost on the job or in public contracting. In 2003,
he dissented when the court endorsed affirmative action in law school
admissions at the University of Michigan.
Roberts. As a government lawyer, advocated scaling back of government
affirmative action; as deputy solicitor general in the George H.W. Bush
administration, argued against a federal program that favored blacks and
other minorities in order to increase their ownership of broadcast
licenses; personal views unknown.
Religion's role in government
Rehnquist. Voted for state and local laws that encouraged prayer in
schools. Endorsed school "vouchers" that allow parents to use public money
to pay tuition at private schools. Supported other public funding of
religious activities.
Roberts. As deputy solicitor general, sided with a public school that
wanted prayer at a graduation ceremony. In his writings as a government
lawyer he suggested a lower wall separating church and state.
***************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
