Roberts Deflects Questions on Privacy
Feature Story by civilrights.org staff - 9/14/2005
Advocates say the White House's refusal to turn over documents from John Roberts' stint as the political deputy in the Solicitor General's office is hampering Americans' ability to determine how expansively the Supreme Court nominee views, and whether he will uphold, the constitutional right to privacy.They say that Roberts' evasive answers Tuesday shed no light on his views on the right to privacy, and that release of the memos would let the American people know what the White House already knows about Roberts' judicial philosophy on critical civil and human rights issues.
Tuesday, Roberts told Sen. Herb Kohl, D. Wisc., "I agree with the Griswold court's conclusion that marital privacy extends to contraception and availability of that. The Court, since Griswold, has grounded the privacy right discussed in that case in the liberty interest protected under the due process clause."
"The right to privacy is protected under the Constitution in various ways. ... the Court has -- it was a series of decisions going back 80 years -- has recognized that personal privacy is a component of the liberty protected by the due process clause," he said to Judiciary Committee Chair Arlen Specter, R. Penn.
Advocates point out that Roberts' answers resemble those that Clarence Thomas gave during his 1991 confirmation hearings.
Thomas told Sen. Patrick Leahy, D. Vt., during his hearings, "I believe the approach that Justice Harlan took in Poe v. Ullman and again reaffirmed in Griswold in determining the -- or assessing the right of privacy was an appropriate way to go."
"[T]he Court has found such a right of privacy to exist in Eisenstadt v. Baird and I do not have a quarrel with that decision," he said to Senator Ted Kennedy, D. Mass.
Advocates say whatever he meant in the hearings, in Lawrence v. Texas in 2003, Justice Thomas said in dissent, "And, just like Justice Stewart, I 'can find [neither in the Bill of Rights nor any other part of the Constitution a] general right of privacy. . . .'" And only eight months after joining the Court, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Justice Thomas joined Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Scalia in stating, "We believe that Roe was wrongly decided, and that it can and should be overruled. . . . ."
"Judge Roberts' answer is too clever by half," said People For the American Way President Ralph G. Neas. "With one breath, he gives false reassurance to Americans who are concerned that a Roberts Court would endanger privacy rights. With the next breath, he signals the far right wing that he could well join Scalia and Thomas in trying to take those rights away."
