The debate over Bush’s Supreme Court nominee will produce predictable opposition from the groups conservative Republicans love to hate: independent women, American Blacks and environmentalists.

The uninitiated may start by reading the glowing review by the Los Angeles Times. Then they’ll take a look at the weakly reassuring Wikipedia entry, the DKosopedia explanation, and ultimately, the Alliance For Justice .pdf file.

The last, by far, is the most thorough examination of his track record as a lawyer, which is all we really have to judge him by. That, and the groups he and his wife belong to.

For me, the dealkiller right out of the starting gates is he was raised in Indiana. A place where the concept of preserving resources in their natural state means they don’t believe in painting their concrete buildings. It’s not that it’s a red state in typical political lexicon. It’s just a gray and dreary place that emulates the Southern state biases, plus some upper-crust British attitude, only more boring than either.

Notice that John and his wife, Jane, have two adopted children, Jack and Josie. Now it’s not the first family I’ve run across where everyone’s name begins with the same letter. But it’s the first one I’ve heard of doing that when the children were adopted. Did they check family health records or other background when deciding who to adopt? One gets the impression they walked into an orphanage and just asked “Got any kids here whose name begins with ‘J’ ?”

See? Boring. But it passes for entertaining and witty in gray Indiana.

But beyond my biases, Judge John G. Roberts is a Catholic with a wife who used to be vice-president of Feminists For Life. Wikipedia notes:

In 2003, during his confirmation hearing for appointment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, when he was asked by senators nervous of him defying previous Supreme Court decisions because of personal beliefs, Roberts said, “Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land… There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent.”

Yet in a case where Roe v. Wade was not at issue, he included the footnote:

“We continue to believe that [Roe v. Wade] was wrongly decided and should be overruled. As more fully explained in our briefs, filed as amicus curiae, in Hodgson v. Minnesota, 110 S. Ct. 2926 (1990); Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 109 S. Ct. 3040 (1989); Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 476 U.S. 747 (1986); and City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, 462 U.S. 416 (1983), the Court’s conclusions in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion and that government has no compelling interest in protecting prenatal human life throughout pregnancy find no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution.”

[link]

And among the dissenters to the majority view in favor of the plaintiff was Sandra Day O’Connor, who felt the decision violated privacy rights and First Amendment rights to free speech. Mr. Roberts won’t come close to filling her shoes.

Why would he choose to include that language, which had no bearing on the case being argued? A reasonable person would have to conclude that’s the personal view that he says won’t impose on the ’settled law’ of Roe v. Wade.

Historically, the Supremes are loath to lead where the public is against going. So-called ‘judicial activism’, be it left or right, typically follows popular sentiment. So with the clear majority of Americans opposed to reversing Roe v. Wade at the moment, I believe Judge Roberts has no clear intent to take on that contentious issue anytime soon.

But he’s not being honest about what he means. He would “fully and faithfully follow that precedent’ while it’s the law of the land. But once he gets to the court where the law of the land can’t be overruled by a higher court, he will follow public sentiment.

As I’m not worried that public sentiment for abortion will drop under 55%, which is the threshold where I anticipate a conservative court would likely be eager for a Roe v. Wade reversal, I’m not that fearful that Judge Roberts will get the chance to do that damage. Instead, he and his fellow conservatives - all men beyond their childbearing days - will whittle at the edges of abortion rights till the only women who can get one - after a mandatory waiting period longer than it takes to buy a rocket propelled grenade launcher at a gun show - will be middle and upper class women over 18, if their names begin with a ‘J’.

So yeah, like NOW, I’m opposed to this jurist, particularly for his brief in support of Operation Rescue.

I’m not concerned about his rulings favoring military tribunals. Knowing their history, if the purported enemies of America are subjected to them - even though regular courts are just as suited to the task - I won’t be losing any sleep.

As for affirmative action, I gather that he’s a mixed bag. I can’t see enough to convince me he’s an ideologue on that, so for an appointee of a President like Bush, a mixed bag is as good as it’s likely to get.

So other than his views on abortion and religion, there’s only one other area where I view him with alarm. He’s a pro-business ideologue in the Calvin Coolidge mode - opposed to regulations that protect the environment and consumers, and likely to grant more protections to business than the labor that makes business possible.

That’s not unexpected, however. While throwing bones to various bases of the GOP vote (conservative Christians and racists) Bush’s highest faith has always been found in his reverence towards big business. And I see more potential damage impacting more people, in that similar mindset that Judge Roberts brings. (Which is to be expected from a lawyer who had annual earnings in excess of a million dollars before he became a judge.)

The environment and workers are likely to be trashed, because that remains the biggest core of conservative belief: unbridled capitalism that favors the powerful and deludes the powerless into thinking they’ll win the lottery one of these days.

And what will the corporate media say about Roberts? He’s okay because he’s likeable as a person. Or he seems to be thoughtful. That’s the only criteria that seems to matter to the DC press corps anymore. (Salon, at least, is willing to consider that his Scalia-like rulings are a greater impediment to his acceptance).

So he’s a capable thinker, a strict constructionist, willing to wear kneepads for Big Business at the expense of most of us. But it’s not like I anticipate Bush will ever appoint a moderate, no matter if public outcry prevents an appointment like this. Still, I believe we’d be better off with more than one woman on the bench. If the court is to represent the public properly, a 5-4 split between genders is the only way true representative justice can come close. And for two centuries, a 9-0 gender split provided imperfect justice, and it’s only recently been narrowed to 7-2.

So hell yeah, I’ll fight against Roberts, simply because the court should have more women. Especially since the most contentious issue it faces anymore is one that impacts women the most.

But I don’t really expect to prevail. Because most Senators - even the Democrats - are men. And men too willing to bend over for big business.

We haven’t come a long way, baby. And we won’t get much further till better gender equity is achieved in every branch of government. Class equity is too much to hope for, but I think gender equity is the principle we can best fight for, and should.

Justice appears to begin with ‘J’, but it can’t get any further without ‘U’. So be sure to write to your Senators today and make the case for gender equity part of it, too.

Not convinced? Well how about the fact that Roberts advised the Bush team on legal strategy in the court fight that got Bush appointed President in the 2000 Presidential race? I don’t find it convincing that this reporter says he “has often argued conservative positions before the court — but they can be attributed to clients, not necessarily to him.” With a million in income, his choice of clients is an issue, as it suggests little pro bono work on behalf of anyone but the wealthy, which is itself an ideology he’s practiced. And, as Chris Bowers notes, he’s a ‘partisan hack’.