Personally, I am starting to like Judge Roberts more and more:

Terri Schiavo, the brain-damaged Florida woman whose case provoked Congressional action and a national debate over end-of-life care, became an issue on Tuesday in the Supreme Court confirmation of Judge John G. Roberts Jr. when a Democratic senator pressed him about whether lawmakers should have intervened.

The senator, Ron Wyden of Oregon, said that Judge Roberts, while not addressing the Schiavo case specifically, made clear he was displeased with Congress’s effort to force the federal judiciary to overturn a court order withdrawing her feeding tube.

“I asked whether it was constitutional for Congress to intervene in an end-of-life case with a specific remedy,” Mr. Wyden said in a telephone interview after the hourlong meeting. “His answer was, ‘I am concerned with judicial independence. Congress can prescribe standards, but when Congress starts to act like a court and prescribe particular remedies in particular cases, Congress has overstepped its bounds.’ “

The answer, which Mr. Wyden said his aides wrote down word-for-word, would seem to put Judge Roberts at odds with leading Republicans in Congress, including the Senate majority leader, Bill Frist, and the House majority leader, Representative Tom DeLay, who both led the charge for Congressional intervention in the Schiavo case this spring. Mr. DeLay said at the time that the federal judiciary had “run amok.”

Mr. Wyden has a keen interest in end-of-life issues because his home state, Oregon, has a law providing for physician-assisted suicide. That law is the subject of a Supreme Court case, on the docket for Oct. 5, about whether the federal government has the right to withdraw prescribing privileges for doctors who follow the Oregon law and prescribe lethal doses of medicine to their dying patients.

Mr. Wyden said that he asked Judge Roberts whether he believed states should take the lead in regulating medical practice, and that the nominee replied that “uniformity across the country would stifle the genius of the founding fathers.”

Mr. Wyden said, “I came away with the sense that he was somewhat sympathetic to my notion that there should be a wide berth for states to take the lead.”

Sounds to me like the man understands the role of the court.

What I Want to HearPost + Comments (14)

Via Jeff, I see that a ‘conservative’ group is withdrawing support (other stories here and here) for Judge Roberts:

A conservative group in Virginia said Tuesday it was withdrawing its support for Supreme Court nominee John Roberts’ confirmation because of his work helping overturn a Colorado referendum on gays.

The group, Public Advocate of the United States, is one of the first conservative organizations to announce anything but support for the judge

Eugene Delgaudio, the president of the group, said in an interview that he hopes his stance will prod others.

“I know that others feel the same way. I know they believe as I do. They’re just not going to act,” the 50-year-old Northern Virginia man said. “But once I’ve done it, then they can’t claim that no one’s opposing Roberts.”

“We can’t take our limited resources and put it toward a candidate who is not a strict constructionist when we were told he is,” Delgaudio said.

The stance by his group, which describes itself as a pro-family organization, puts it in opposition to conservative groups that have endorsed Roberts. A number of liberal groups already oppose President Bush’s high court nominee…

Delgaudio said then: “‘Freedom’ is not embracing perversion.”

What will be funny to watch over the next few days is people moving to distance themselves from and marginalize Delgaudio and his organization, a move that is already underfoot in some quarters.

Make no mistakes- Delgaudio and Public Advocate are cranks, but their views are wholly within the mainstream of the religious right movement:

Public Advocate helped, and continues to help, educate the public on various policy issues by numerous communications to its supporters.

Public Advocate worked on the following three federal legislative issues:

the enactment of Defense of Marriage Act

the repeal of the Marriage Penalty Tax

the defeat of Ted Kennedy’s Thought Control Bill (so-called Hate Crimes legislation)

Public Advocate used news conferences, interviews, post card mailings and street theater to attract public support. To support this legislation, Public Advocate staff traveled to 40 cities in 7 states (Pennsylvania, New York, California, Florida, Vermont, Virginia, New Hampshire) and Washington, D.C.

Public Advocate used “street theater” in Washington, D.C. to defend Dr. Laura’s Radio program against the gay rights lobby, which was attacking her religious and moral beliefs and seeking to have her program barred from radio stations.

Public Advocate successfully worked for the passage of the Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act in the House and Senate Education Conference Committee, where it became part of the Education Bill signed by the President. Public Advocate fought a strong movement to strike it quietly from the legislation. As part of this effort, Public Advocate staff went to more than 30 Senate offices and presented 100,000 petitions, postcards, and letters in favor of this legislation in the Senate.

Here is a Public Advocate protest in front of the Supreme Court regarding Clinton/Paula Jones:

Their methods may be odd and at sometimes in your face (and, in the above case, funny), but again, their beliefs are fully within the mainstream of the Focus on the Family/Family Research Center right. On virtually every issue, they adopt the exact same rhetoric and the exact same position as the AFA, the FRC, Focus on the Family. And let’s not forget the initial statement by Tony Perkins upon learning that Roberts had done pro-bono work for gay rights groups:

“Judge Roberts was an attorney with a large firm where helping colleagues when called upon was expected,” Family Research Council President Tony Perkins said yesterday after researching the matter. “I have verified that his involvement was limited to about five hours of participation in a moot court as he played the role of one of the high court’s conservative members asking tough hypothetical questions of the attorneys who actually prepared and argued the case.”

Mr. Perkins said his initial reaction to the news was concern that Judge Roberts had been “aiding and abetting” the groups. But after discussions with the White House and surrogates, Mr. Perkins urged caution in reaching that conclusion.

First he was afraid, he was petrified. But then he was reassured that he could live with Judge Roberts by his side.

In other words, when you hear people distancing themselves from Delgaudio and Public Advocate over the next days, recognize that it isn’t because their beliefs are extreme or offensive. Rather, the unforgivable sin committed by Delgaudio was that of insufficient political savvy.

Walks Like a Duck, Talks Like…Post + Comments (9)