The Alliance For Justice has put out an over hundred page report on the record of Judge John Roberts, explaining its opposition to his confirmation. Its summary:
Judge Roberts’ consistent record suggests that he would limit Congress’ long-standing ability to address nationwide problems, restrict the courts’ historic authority to vindicate individual rights and legal protections, expand the powers of the president and law enforcement and lower the wall separating church and state. This record raises a number of serious concerns that warrant in-depth exploration at Judge Roberts’ hearing.
Early on, it quotes former Acting Solicitor General Walter Dellinger, who recently stated, "[i]t does not seem unfair for a senator to associate a nominee with the most fundamental legal policies of an administration in which the nominee chose to serve in a senior policymaking position." This is what I really hang my hat on: the claim that his strongly conservative views while a part of the Reagan and Bush administrations does not really reflect his judicial ideology seems to me at best facetious. Dellinger's essays over at Slate not surprisingly reflects the arguments he submitted while Solicitor General. One simply does not hold true that one is chosen to top policymaking positions based on brains alone. It surely is not the case in the Reagan and Bush White Houses.
And, Roberts' views in those roles simply are too conservative and executive power friendly for my tastes. A few too many "so-called" fundamental rights and limited views on promoting equality. A few too much support for selective jurisdiction stripping proposals to promote conservative views. And, a few too much support of executive power. Governmental restraint, including for judges, suddenly goes to the wayside (including vis-a-vis local action) when the executive is involved with these people.
The report is a rather impressive act of advocacy, especially given the time restraints, and the fact that it is generally for a rather limited audience. My not so revolutionary prediction is that it won't convince that many people, surely not enough to defeat the Roberts nomination. Hopefully, it and other similar efforts, might affect the debate including some of the questioning during the hearings. And, maybe, just maybe, a fairly straight Democrat vote against the confirmation.
I do not care if he might be "the best we can do" -- a 60-40 vote will not mean a worse person will be confirmed, right? It will just underline that the Democrats oppose the sentiments supported by Roberts, apparently a smart/nice guy, but one whose views leave a bit to be desired. And, while voting against him, the Dems (except for the usual suspects ... and who knows, maybe a Republican or two) can say why. The report provides some fodder.