Judge John Roberts, blasted by gay abortion leftwing activists
as a dangerous threat to our basic liberties, during his
testimony on Tuesday spoke eloquently about the equal
protection clause, saying that while the context was clearly about
slavery, the intent of the framers was broader than just racial
inequality:
They [the founders] didn't write the equal protection clause in such narrow terms. They wrote more generally. That may have been a particular problem motivating them, but they chose to use broader terms, and we should take them at their word, so that is perfectly appropriate to apply the equal protection clause to issues of gender and other types of discrimination beyond the racial discrimination that was obviously the driving force behind it. (emphasis added)
Of the right to privacy (the basis for overturning "sodomy"
laws), he remarked:
the court has...recognized that personal privacy is a component of the liberty protected by the due process clause. The court has explained that the liberty protected is not limited to freedom from physical restraint and that it's protected not simply procedurally, but as a substantive matter as well. And those decisions have sketched out, over a period of 80 years, certain aspects of privacy that are protected as part of the liberty in the due process clause under the Constitution.
Finally, on his pro bono work on behalf of the gay attorneys
arguing Romer v. Evans, the landmark gay rights case in
which the Supreme Court ruled that states couldn't single out gays
for discrimination, Roberts said (and here, he has to worry about
inflaming the anti-gay right as well):
I was asked frequently by other partners to help out....And I never turned down a request. I think it's right that if there had been something morally objectionable, I suppose I would have.
Of course, in the view of the Human Rights Campaign, expressed before they bothered to hear his testimony, "Judge Roberts has such as a narrow view of what the courts can and should do, it's a wonder he wants the job at all." And the newly partisan-ized Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) fulminated, "We cannot sit back and allow a man with a demonstrated record of hostility towards privacy and minority rights to make decisions on our nation's highest court...."
Oh, what a beast.
Further, HRC and others also have expressed
their concern that Roberts will not show sufficient "adherence to
precedent" as regards prior court decisions - necessary to uphold
Roe v. Wade from future challenges. But of course if
"adherence to precedent" was as binding as they (now) insist,
Bowers v. Hardwick would not have been overturned and we'd
still have sodomy laws. And let's hope a future court won't feel
bond by precedent when it comes to revisiting the awful
Kelo decision that stuck at the heart of property
rights!