The Liberal Patriot

John Roberts: Part of the Downward Spiral

Leigh Saavedra - July 23, 2005

Bush's tap of John Roberts to replace Sandra Day

O'Connor on the Supreme Court may be the most

dangerous nomination or appointment he has made yet.

Despite the rather watery response of most of the

Democrats and the fear that they will lose the

filibuster completely if they oppose him, this may

well be the time to use all available options to stop

this nomination.  The danger here is not just the

reactionary votes we can expect from Mr. Roberts but

the continuing decline of respect for the United

States as it moves ever further from the values that

once made us a beacon for honor, integrity, and

compassion.

Occasionally, a politician will choose or nominate

someone for a high position on the basis of that

person's qualifications and the politician's belief

that such selection will in some way better the

country.  Or so we are told.  It seems, though, that

in the real world, appointments are made to appease

the constituency to whom the politician owes favors.

In selecting someone to take Sandra Day O'Conner's

place as a Supreme Court Justice, Bush had to decide

which group of his constituency to please, to pay, or

to cajole.  Many expected the nomination to go to

another woman, to keep the high court from returning

to its all-male days.  Women's advocacy groups would

have been pleased to see a woman replaced by another

woman.  Others felt it was time for another minority

member, perhaps one with a stronger stage presence

than Clarence Thomas, to find a place there.  Still

others remember that Bush once defined himself as a

"uniter" and hoped for a moderate candidate who could

bring the highly polarized country more closely

together, hopefully closer to the middle again.  At

the least, many dared to hope for a tie-breaker like

O'Connor, taking some of the partisanship out of the

Court.

Some writers are saying that Bush, or whoever is the

real power behind such decisions, simply picked the

first suitable person available.  Such haste would

divert attention from the investigation into Karl

Rove's part in divulging Valerie Plame's identity,

possibly a form a treason and certainly not one the

White House wants to deal with in the midst of Bush's

fading approval ratings.

I don't think so.  The selection of John Roberts

appears to have been carefully crafted.  It was not

women who propelled Bush into office; it was not

minorities; it was not people asking for the

application of humanism in making court decisions.  It

wasn't, ironically, those who would ask for a judge

who would "strictly apply the law as written, and not

legislate from the bench" (Bush's words).  Bush

doesn't owe these groups an important favor.

He does, however, owe BIG TIME the far right religious

extremists who are now virtually running our country.

Without these folks we would never have been told that

"The British government has learned that Saddam

Hussein recently sought significant quantities of

uranium from Africa..."  (State of the Union Address,

2003)

These are the people who believe George Bush is a "man

of God" because he has told them he is.  They are the

people who fuzz out over the numbers of people dying

in a war that was not and never will be justified, who

are confused by numbers: what we spend a day killing

people, how many countries we have military bases in,

what the rates of homelessness and unemployment have

been in the past five years, how much pollution has

resulted from relaxed regulation.  They are instead

preoccupied with the highs of flag waving, the

"treason" of flag burning, the necessity of prayer in

public schools, the "evil" of stem-cell research, the

repeal of ROE v. WADE, and support for the president

"staying the course" in the Mideast.

Without a repeal of the 22nd amendment, which is

highly unlikely, this is Bush's last term as

president.  It is not, however, the end of the

extremist agenda that has marked Bush's tenure.

There's always Jeb, among dozens, in the wings, and

these people, the so-called "Christians" who support

the current imperialistic policy, are not willing to

give up their near-total power over our government.

A Supreme Court justice is appointed for life.  His

power is among the greatest in the country.  Roberts,

at 50, is younger than the average new Supreme Court

justice.  It is possible, based on current ages of the

Justices (Stevens is 85; Rehnquist is 81), that

Roberts, if confirmed, will promote this agenda for

thirty or more years.  Roberts is a man who stands up

for all the hard core beliefs of the very far right.

Senator Ted Kennedy recently put it in good black and

white stacks by saying that a Supreme Court Justice

deals with corporate interests v. consumers' welfare,

polluters v. environmentalists, workers v. bosses.

Those of us who fear the growing imperialistic

ambitions of the White House would certainly add war

v. peace.  Embedded in the latter is what such a

justice would do for the respect our country has lost

in much of the world.

In truth, poll after poll shows that much of the world

has lost faith in the U.S., that while many fear us,

that fear does not translate into respect.  The

scandals of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo have put us in a

downward spiral, and a man who does not oppose the

atrocities of these and other prisons will do nothing

but increase the speed of the downward spiral.

According to the rules of the Geneva Convention,

designed to protect people detained by military

forces, prisoners of war have the right to be tried in

courts-martial rather than by military "commissions."

Military courts-martial, like civilian courts, offer

rights and legal protections denied to prisoners tried

by these commissions.  Additionally, these

international treaties state that prisoners taken in

war are entitled to hearings prior to a criminal trial

which would decide whether they qualify as prisoners

of war.

Of the importance of these conventions, Human Rights

Watch, through Tom Malinowski, says that "The Geneva

Conventions are profoundly important to American

servicemen and women.  Respecting the conventions

preserves our ability to complain when the rights of

Americans are abused."

Adherence to these Geneva Convention rules was

recently tested by a three-member Court of Appeals, on

which John Roberts currently sits.

In November, 2004, a lower court blocked the military

commission trial of a mechanic who worked for a time

as Osama bin Laden's driver.  The mechanic, Salim

Ahmed Hamdan, never denied working as bin Laden's

driver but has denied taking part in any terrorist

activities; he has been detained in Guantanamo Bay for

over seventeen months, informally charged with being a

member of al Qaeda.  This lower court had concluded

that Hamdan and other prisoners are entitled to

hearings in advance of criminal trials by military

officers.  Such conclusion was in keeping with the

Geneva convention rules.

John Roberts and the other two judges of the panel

cast out the lower court's decision.  Such action was,

in effect, an endorsement to the idea that the

president has the power to decide how military

detainees are to be handled during a time of conflict

[ed. whether or not the conflict was instigated by the

U.S.].  These three men's judgement supports the

belief that George Bush has complete power to declare

a man to be an "enemy combatant."

Georgetown University professor Neal Katyal is working

as Hamdan's attorney, though he has not yet been

allowed to speak to his client.  Katyal, promising an

appeal, expressed concern over the judgement that

supports the military commission rules, whereby

prisoners on trial can be forced to leave the room

while the proceedings against them take place.  He has

commented that with this decision, the president is

able to "set up an entire architecture of justice as

he sees fit."

As a result of the judgement to which John Roberts

contributed, Hamdan, a 34-year old mechanic with a

fourth grade education, remains in prison without

legal counsel as he awaits a decision by a military

commission.

If Professor Katyal appeals the case, John Roberts may

(and is likely to) again vote against Hamdan's right

to have legal counsel and a trial approved by

international treaties.  For some, this amounts to two

hundred years of constitutional law being tossed down

the drain.

John Roberts has served on the bench for only two

years, so there is not a large stack of paper to prove

whether or not he will "legislate from the bench."

And while his professional reputation is considered

good, there is a great lack of evidence to work as

proof of the integrity we expect in a Supreme Court

justice.

As Deputy Solicitor General under the first Bush, he

argued to the Supreme Court that "Roe [ed. Roe v.

Wade] was wrongly decided and should be overruled..."

Then later, while being questioned before taking his

current position on the Appeals Court, he stated,

regarding Roe v. Wade's being used as a precedent that

"My own personal views would not be relevant."  If

this isn't doublespeak, there's not an abundance of

wiggle room between it and Roberts' statements.

Our nation is creating terrorists faster than we are

killing them, and we are creating enemies with more

energy than we are maintaining alliances.  We are

under a glass right now, and except for those who

think the U.S. can take on the entire world, the

opinion formed by those looking through the glass is

crucial to our well-being, possibly even our survival.

And much of the downward spiral in world opinion is

the result of our mistakes in invading Iraq and then

being found out as having lied about the reasons.

Much of the world is watching, to see if we stay on

this path to a rather shoddy "Pax Americana" or

whether we will stop ourselves.  To put a man who

consistently votes with rightwing extremists and has

no regard for international treaties in a position of

almost unparalleled great power is a bit like endowing

Sisyphus with a pair of roller skates.

______________

Leigh Saavedra has been writing for almost forty years

under the name "Lisa Walsh Thomas."  She is a veteran

activist, going back to civil rights work in

Mississippi, marches against the Vietnam War, and

fighting the mainstream press over distortion of

events in Nicaragua, where she lived for two winters.

She is the author of two books, "SO NARROW THE BRIDGE

AND DEEP THE WATER" (Seal Press, winner of the

Washington State Governor's Award, now out of print)

and "THE GIRL WITH YELLOW FLOWERS IN HER HAIR"

(Pitchfork Publishing, New Jersey).  She appreciates

comments at saavedra1979@yahoo.com.

Back to liberal patriot main page