Together, Starr and Roberts pressed a strongly conservative legal agenda for 3 1/2 years. They argued for limiting the scope of civil rights laws, ending race-based affirmative action, restoring some prayers to public schools and overruling Roe vs. Wade, the case that established a woman's right to abortion.Hmmm...well, I am all about civil rights, for affirmative action, not a big fan of state establishing religion in public schools, and Roe v. Wade is good. So, Mr. Roberts, you and I have different views on many, many things.
In 1991, Roberts personally argued a case along with lawyers for Operation Rescue. The protesters had been sued in Virginia over their abortion clinic blockades. The women who sued relied on the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, which made it illegal for a group to conspire to deprive individuals of their rights.Wow. Though he is young, and he can change his views from his appointment president, I do think this man may not be the right choice. Yeah, he helped out a prisoner who was beat up even though the prisoner was shackled and handcuffed. That is probably only thing I have seen as a glimmer of hope. But, it makes me really uneasy that he is very close to Starr.
Roberts began by saying that he was not defending the actions of the protesters. Rather, he argued, the 19th century civil rights law did not apply to their conduct. The law only applied when people were singled out for discrimination, as blacks were by the Klan, Roberts said.
:
:
(The Supreme Court is set to hear a similar case this fall involving blockades at abortion clinics. Lawyers for the National Organization for Women won a suit against leaders of Operation Rescue for using violence and threats against doctors and patients. The court will hear an appeal from the antiabortion advocates, who say a federal extortion law does not apply to such protests.)
0 comment(s):
Post a comment
<< Home