This seems to be a pretty unfair portrayal of events:
A prominent abortion rights group launched a television ad yesterday that accuses Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. of siding with violent extremists and a convicted clinic bomber while serving in the solicitor general’s office, an accusation that Roberts’s supporters immediately condemned as a flagrant distortion.
The ad, sponsored by NARAL Pro-Choice America, focuses on Roberts’s role in a case involving whether a 19th-century anti-Ku Klux Klan statute could be used to shut down blockades of health clinics by abortion protesters. The solicitor general’s office filed a friend-of-the-court brief siding with the clinic protesters, including Operation Rescue. The high court ruled 6 to 3 against the health clinics in January 1993.
The NARAL ad, set to begin airing tomorrow on local channels in Maine and Rhode Island and nationally on the CNN and Fox News cable networks, features Emily Lyons, a clinic director who was badly injured when a bomb exploded at her clinic in Birmingham in 1998. The ad ends by urging viewers to call their senators to tell them to oppose the federal appellate judge’s confirmation to the Supreme Court.
“Supreme Court nominee John Roberts filed court briefs supporting violent fringe groups and a convicted clinic bomber,” the ad states. The ad concludes by saying, “America can’t afford a justice whose ideology leads him to excuse violence against other Americans.”
It is just going to go downhill from here.
*** Update ***
Sebastian Holsclaw writes:
We can put aside the question of whether or not Operation Rescue really supports clinic bombings (I always thought it was a splinter called something like “The Lambs of God”). The ‘unlawful behavior’ in question for the court case was not clinic bombings, but rather political expression. And it was found by the Supreme Court not to in fact be unlawful under the Ku Klux Klan act–the question in the case. Now Terry and Bray were indeed among the defendants in the case, but so were every other pro-life demonstrator. Spinning that into excusing violence against other Americans is exactly like saying that the ACLU was pro-terrorist because it protected the free speech rights of Muslims. It will be interesting to see if Democratic leaders take up this line of attack when the confirmation comes around.
Geek, Esq.
Yeah, that’s pretty low.
I’m in the “oppose” camp until Roberts disavows his 1980’s disdain for privacy rights, but this is the mirror image of the “he aided and abetted faggotry” crap coming from the Spongedob Stickypants crowd.
Steve
I don’t see Operation Rescue as a legitimate group. Their tactics are deplorable, they are about a half-step removed from those who practice violence against abortion providers, and I personally would never agree to work on a case that involved defending their practices.
Mr Furious
It is, in a sense, the mirror image, but they are not equal in my opinion. Think funhouse mirror…
Going to bat for Operation Rescue is what Roberts did in the SG’s office, but he was forwarding the reprehensible agenda of the Administration. It is unfair to say it reflects his personal ideology. It might be fair to ask if it does reflect his opinion, and make him state otherwise or defend the position.
Bullshit. That’s exactly the purpose of your ad. Own up to it or pull it.
On the other hand, the nomination of a judge with no paper trail was a deliberate strategy by the President to minimize objections to his record. So it is also bullshit for the Right to consistently cry that Roberts’ opponents are on fishing expeditions—they have no choice. His record in the Solicitor General’s office is all they have to go on.
Defense Guy
Selective outrage. I take it the I hate Roberts crowd have no problem with Ginsbergs outright activism for organizations like the ACLU. Or is it ok from one side?
neil
How utterly ridiculous. What’s not fair about this? It’s not like Roberts is some naif who had no idea about the politics of filing an amicus brief on behalf of Operation Rescue. He’s not going to get off that easy, just like Frist and Jeb didn’t get off easy from their flirtations with Randall Terry.
As far as his “good intentions” go, I laugh in the face of any Republican who says “he’s not supporting bombings, he’s supporting political speech.” This is EXACTLY the sort of effective attack that has given the Republicans the political good fortune they currently enjoy. They brought this filth on themselves. The simple fact of the matter is that this is how politics works these days, and if you think Democrats are going to unilaterally disarm or accept the double standard, then you are being quite naive.
Mr Furious
The ACLU does NOT equal Operation Rescue. If anything, the irony is that the ACLU might be just as likely to defend the rights of an objectionable group like Operation Rescue.
Defense Guy
Yes, because the argument can never be made that the ACLU’s support of NAMBLA is even close to the same thing. Pardon my mistake.
A lawyer acting in a zelous manner on behalf of his client, man, what a tool. How dare he.
Yet another Jeff
People are misrepresenting what the case was about. From John’s link to Obsidian Wings
The text scrolling on the ad indicates that NARAL spins Roberts’ advocacy on Bray v. Alexandria Clinic into support for violence against abortion providers. That case was about whether the Ku Klux Klan act barred pro-life protestors from obstructing clinics.
Defense Guy
I realize that all that furiousnous might get in the way of cognitive ability, but you might start with the idea that not everybody thinks an organization devoted to showing the true face of abortion should be seen as the devil. But then, that is a possible moral judgment, so you should try not to take a stand either way.
Steve
I don’t think anyone ever said Ginsburg’s association with the ACLU should be off-limits. It’s just that a movement to say “Ginsburg was with the ACLU, don’t approve her” wouldn’t have gained much momentum. But if someone had opposed her because they hate the ACLU, I wouldn’t agree with them on the merits, but I’d say it’s their right to take that position.
NAMBLA might be a good analogy to Operation Rescue because they are both legal organizations, I guess, but neither of them is very far removed from illegal activity. They might both have a right to exist and engage in political expression, but that doesn’t mean I’d spend my time or money advocating for either one of them. And if someone does choose to advocate for one of them, I don’t think it’s some sort of unfair attack to point that out.
Mr Furious
You betcha. Harrassment and antagonizing (I want to say “terrorizing”) young women in desperate situations makes me perfectly reasonably and cognitively furious. I am furious long before we get to the point of violence against clinics and doctors. At that point, I am beyond apoplectic. You?
You are allowed to be mad that other people that have nothing to do with you want to exercise a legal medical option, if you want I guess.
I’ll be on the other side, furious at the tactics. That’s my stand.
Mr Furious
Steve, nicely put. I’ll go with the NAMBLA=OR analogy.
It’s hard to believe i’m advocating for Roberts on this, but (unlike the gay rights case?) I’m not sure he had a choice or personal stake in the Operation Rescue case. So, I think it is only fair to keep that in mind when using it against him.
Yet another Jeff
He wasn’t just defending Operation Rescue though. He was defending various pro-life groups, one of which was OR. That’s like saying because you support muslims you support muslim terrorists
And let’s not ignore this either
I can’t believe people are defending this
Doug
Interesting strategy, though. In the absence of any real paper trail, opposition groups can possibly just make stuff up. Makes Roberts pay a penalty for not having a record.
adk46er
The gov’t (Roberts) wasn’t defending Operation Rescue practices – that is NARAL’s spin. From Powerline:
I don’t believe a limited paper trail gives groups like NARAL a license to distort Roberts record. In any event the ad is so unfair it may backfire.
Geek, Esq.
Btw, welcome to the world of Swiftboat politics, folks. Third parties throw the mud, while their beneficiaries and cohorts in the major parties pretend to be above it all.
If I could be convinced that Karl Rove’s Republican party and the rightwing noise machine would stop pulling this kind of stuff, then I’d raise my voice loudly in condemnation.
As things stand, I’ll just shrug my shoulders.
demimondian
Hmm. Could it be that Judge Roberts is a good lawyer? The courts function best when defendants have the best representation available, and, to the extent that Roberts thinks he’s among the best lawyers around, shouldn’t he seek to contribute to any case like this? The First Amendment/Fourteenth Amendment conflict in the OR cases is actually quite interesting.
nyrev
NARAL is a nuisance, and despite what they would like to think, they don’t represent the majority of liberals any more than the Christian Defense Coalition represents the majority of conservatives. Most people on both sides of the political spectrum think that Judge Roberts is a perfectly acceptable candidate.
Defense Guy
Hey Mr. Furious, anger is the rule of the day on this issue. If you wish to reserve all of your anger to point at the side stating that 30 million dead soon to be humans is perhaps not a stellar achievement by any yardstick, then you have at it. That you have none left over for the actual victims of this issue, makes you kind of a selfish prick in my book.
Then again you were fortunate to get to be born, so why should you care?
Defense Guy
Yes, thanks McCain you effing prick.
You don’t really expect either side to behave in a responsible manner anymore do you? Lies are the rule of the day these days my friend.
As long as enough people take this stand, things will never change and will have no hope of ever getting better. Then again, the fact that you are actually taking the time to comment on political subjects leads me to believe that this statement by you isn’t, strictly speaking, true.
Geek, Esq.
I’m all for high principle and an honest exploration for the truth. But, politics is now conducted thusly:
Karl Rove, Limbaugh, the Swiftboats etc etc have been bringing guns to the fight. I can’t ask or even expect my side to bring boquets of flowers.
rose
It strikes me that to file a friend of the court brief supporting discrimination because if they don’t support discrimination in this case then the other laws that discriminate might be called into question is good reason not to want Roberts on the court. There are plenty more. The Hamdan decision supports the imperial presidency position. Roberts clearly states that the Constitution provides no right to privacy. In the ’80s he declared we don’t have a constitutional right to move from one state to another. Creepy guy.
Defense Guy
Geek, esq.
I am not sure what to say if you think your side is behaving any better. It isn’t and it may just be partisanship that allows you to think this way.
Steve
The excuse offered is that Roberts had to take the position he did, because a contrary ruling might have called into question whether the government could legally deny funding to abortion providers. Okay, but I happen to think it’s bullshit that the government denies funding to abortion providers that they provide to all sorts of other medical providers.
I don’t think that’s a defensible position in the least. If the fact that a large segment of the population has moral objections is a sufficient reason to deny taxpayer funding, then I don’t see how tax revenues can be used to pay for the war in Iraq.
Mr Furious
No kidding. You were the one implying anger was clouding my judgement. I’ll be angry and stay that way, whilst keeping my wits about me.
Indeed I was. In fact, my Catholic parents became pregnant with me before they were married (how could that possibly have happened?). They both dropped out of College to get married. A fine choice from my POV, but guess what? If they had made a different decision it wouldn’t matter to me, because I wouldn’t know about it!
Seven years ago, my then-girlfriend became pregnant even though she was on the pill. We agreed to get an abortion. It was honestly not a very difficult decision for me, we were in no position financially or in our relationship to raise a child, and broke up, not surprisingly, shortly afterward.
Years later, I AM a parent. But, there was a time during my daughter’s early development where my wife and I decided an unplanned pregnancy would be ended. We were making a conscious decision to concentrate on the child we HAVE. Based on our resources and the parenting decisions we made, we would not make sacrifices at the expense of our child for an accident.
Now, in our current situation (job, homeowner, my daughter’s age, etc) the equation regarding that decision has changed. What has NOT changed is the fact that I do not plan on asking you, the President or anyone else for input in that decision.
You might think that makes me a selfish prick. I happen to think it makes me a responsible father and husband. And I KNOW it is none of your business.
Defense Guy
I generally do not judge those that have had abortions, as it really just isn’t helpful and the shame is often inherent with the act anyway, so no need to dump fuel on it. I will clue you on something though, aborting one of your offspring will not win you any father of the year awards. I’m sure you will share that lovely story with the child that did live. That should be a lovely moment for you both.
One other thing, this is the sort of definition of sacrifice that made the Soviets so hugely succesful. No, I don’t care if you think it is none of my business.
The furious remark was a play on your name. I think maybe I will just refer to you as Mr. morally convienant from here on in. No, not really.
Defense Guy
One other thing. It’s not that I want to or do have anything against you. It is just that when people act as if it is no big deal with abortions, I get kinda worked up. My apologies for any shit slinging.
Geek, Esq.
To be quite honest, nothing compares to the way Republicans tear each other apart in the primaries. Phil Gramm and John McCain can certainly attest to that.
Mike
“Karl Rove, Limbaugh, the Swiftboats etc etc have been bringing guns to the fight. I can’t ask or even expect my side to bring boquets of flowers.”
You act as if NARAL was this lovely organization that never brought “guns” to the fight. Perhaps you should look into the words of one of their founders on how they helped get Roe passed sometime. (http://www.aboutabortions.com/Confess.html).
These are despicable human beings. Period.
jg
Roberts wasn’t actually defending clinic bombers. John Kerry really DID earn his medals. Welcome to 21st Century American politics. To hear right wingers get angry at this is hilarious. Are you actually using nuance? You are mad because an ad was misleading? Made a candidate look bad because the truth was only hinted at? I got two middle fingers pointed right at all of you. The same two I flashed at all the Yankees fans last year during the ALCS that I watched on my big kick ass HDTV.
IRA/Sinn Fein.
Yet another Jeff
Yes, anyone who thinks the Democrats don’t engage in misleading and unfair attacks don’t remember their campaign against the Republican’s medicare proposal in the 90s, complete with Republicans pushing old people in wheelchairs down stairs
Katherine
This ad is disgusting, and I will say so. I will not excuse it with the Swift Boat ads or the attacks on the ACLU or the portrayal of liberal opposition to torture as making excuses for torture. That it is essentially the same kind of argument as those ads, is only more reason to condemn it, not an excuse for it. If I want to be able to condemn the next round of those attacks without being a hypocrite, and demand that people on the right do the same, I have to condemn this. I’m not going to wait for Instapundit or Powerline to see the error of their to do this, I don’t let jerks “Hindrocket” or the Swiftboat liars or Karl Rove determine what I think is right or wrong.
And when I do I become justified is asking you why the hell you tolerate this from your own side. If want to condemn this sort of tactic and demand that people on the left condemn it, and you don’t want to be a hypocrite, you must condemn this sort of tactic when the GOP does it. And they do it close to constantly.
John, you’ve started doing this and I’m not saying you haven;t.
Mr Furious
Defense Guy-
No apology necessary. All in all, a suprisingly civil discourse on a difficult topic.
Look, I am not proud of a lot of the decisions I made in my twenties (many of them in fact). But i can still look at my life now, with my wife and beautiful daughter, and I would not go back in time to change a thing, not the abortion, not getting rich in the stock market. I would never trade my daughter as she is right now for anything.
It would probably be more accurate to say the the decision seemed clear to me at the time, rather than say it “wasn’t difficult.” It was certainly emotional, and pretty much spelled the end of our relationship. But I still believe it was the right choice. Had that child been born, it might have faced resentful parents, a divorce and financial hardship. In addition, the daughter I HAVE would never have been born…
In a way, I have to consider that abortion a “hypothetical” even in retrospect. I know that might seem incalculably cold to some of you to think that way, but it’s how I handle my life looking back and moving forward.
It is entirely possible that if actually faced with the decision of what to do with an unplanned pregnancy over the last few years (my daughter is almost three) we might have struggled mightily with that decision and even had the second child–one cannot know. But it would be a profound and difficult decision between my wife and I and no one else.
Steve
Wow, the guy says it will be a “lovely moment” when you tell your child about the abortion of his prospective sibling, and you call it a civil discourse. You are a poor representative of the hateful Left, sir.
Mr Furious
Yeah, that was treading pretty close to a “Bring it on” moment, but I knew I was opening myself up. But, DG did apologize if anger got the better of him.
Like i said, it’s all “hypothetical.” There was no prospective sibling, my wife and I never had an unplanned pregnancy. End of story.
The abortion that an ex-girlfriend had years before my daughter was a twinkle in my eye has absolutely NOTHING to do with her in any way, shape or form. She will never meet that person (girlfriend) or have any reason to be told about a hypothetical half-sibling that was barely closer to life than any used condom i threw away in college. Sound cold? Well, it is. But, that’s the fact. Now I’m angry again… Thanks a lot.
Defense Guy
It is hard to have the conversation without anger entering into it. I used to be pro-choice. Went to dead shows with a girlfriend who would sport the old no wire hangers shirt. 30 million lives later, I can no longer support a cavalier attitude towards human life.
Mr Furious
I find it fascinating that you were pro-choice… and I gotta tell you, it makes the things you said upthread more than a little further over the line.
I already accepted your apology, and that still stands, but it’s different now, knowing you threw stones like that considering your own past.
I should probably be more careful about getting personal in a forum like this—I knew it would expose me. But I think it’s pretty rich to hear shit like that from somebody who could have been in the exact same situation. Something tells me you and Miss Coat Hanger shirt might even have reached the same decision. Try to deal with your guilt about that without projecting it onto others in the future
[walking away]
Defense Guy
Be careful, when I was in the same accidental situation as you, the choice I made was a polar opposite one. I already told you that I felt I went over the line and that I do not see the need to judge you on past decisions. My point remains, this cavalier attitude about what is at the end of the day the taking of a human life, is not something to be proud of.
You still don’t seem to get this, as you seem to have a strange sort of prideful feeling about it.
You won’t tell the child that lived about the one that didn’t, so why not?
Mr Furious
Fair enough. I do not know about you and likewise.
First of all, my daughter is two and a half, so this discussion is difficult to even imagine… and also is why it so quickly riles me.
If the situation arose (ie: a serious discussion about an abortion situation), and I felt it was appropriate, I would be honest with my daughter. But it will certainly never be in the context of “sit down, honey, let me tell you about your sibling that didn’t live.” A guilt-ridden asshole father might do that to their child—that is not me.
Here’s where we really, irreversibly part company and I really walk away from this…
In my mind it never got that far. THERE WAS NO CHILD! We are talking about an immediate termination here. I do not consider it a baby, and certainly not a child.
There is no pride in my words here—get it straight. Plenty of anger, now, but no pride. I think I’ve more than cleared up any impression of a “cavalier attitude.”
This was a serious, somber decision made long ago, and it has nothing to do with my daughter. That’s the way i look at it, and frankly, I’m the ONLY opinion that counts.
Rome Again
Pardon me for interjecting here, but I’ve never seen a member of the left shout death threats or state that a member of the right didn’t belong in this country. Maybe I’m hanging out in the wrong rooms, I’m sure it has probably happened but I’m not aware of it, despite my long time acquaintance with left wing blogs (where I should have seen more of this if it happens since thats where many liberals hang out), BUT, I’ve had members of the right do both of things to me numerous times.
The persecution complex is getting old, can we drop it please?
By the way, Republican, this is still your country… and it’s still mine too! Just because I don’t like the bus driver doesn’t mean I have to get off the bus.
Rome Again
So the far left hates him, the far right hates him and Zeus only knows what dirty deed Roberts is going to perform that will have one of these two sides up in arms eventually.
Boy, Bush sure knows how to pick em, doesn’t he?
I hope this fractures his base, actually, only because they’re getting too cocky. Roe v. Wade is going away eventually, it is inevitable with this crowd. I guess we will have the satisfaction one day though of watching what happens when that comes about. The ramifications are not pretty.
By the way DG, I don’t like abortion, but the alternative is not what you think it is. There will be many children born to parents who are not able to care for them, do you want these children to grow up with that kind of pain?
“God” even aborts babies (mistakes that wouldn’t grow into a viable life, they are called “miscarriages”) so tell me, what happens to the souls of those “God” couldn’t make right?
I’ll sit back and watch the fireworks.
Rome Again
By the way, I meant to say “I guess we will have the putrid satisfaction one day though of watching what happens when that comes about.”
Rome Again
I agree, but then again, everyone knows that lefties are nothing but blood-drinking vampires. Fancy that.
[/sarcasm]
DougJ
Having read about his work for homosexual activists, I am now convinced Roberts is another Souter.
Rome Again
Why do I have this tendency to want to call you Eeyore?
NewsFlash DougJ, your party is in power, your party is calling the shots, why are you so unhappy?
Stormy70
CNN will play with NARAL. According to Drudge.