by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright July 2, 2007
All Rights Reserved.

rapping up his second year as Supreme Court Chief Justice, John G. Roberts proved his liberal critics wrong, showing extraordinary balance, despite rulings that appear more conservative. Roberts currently has a 5-4 conservative majority, courtesy of President George W. Bush, whose last appointment Samuel A. Alito Jr. tipped the balance, replacing moderate Reagan appointee Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Liberals rail against the High Court's recent decision to ban school districts from using race to achieve integration—a blow to the landmark 1954 Brown v. Board of Education, ending the “separate but equal” doctrine, allowing public schools to remain segregated. “The High Court has decided correctly that children must be stereotyped by the color of their skin, but treated as individuals,” said Sharon Browne, a lawyer with the conservative Pacific Legal Foundation in Sacramento.

      Railing against recent decisions, the American Civil Liberties Union sees the current court as reversing past constitutional rights. When the court voted 5-4 to ban late term abortions, AKA, “partial-birth abortions," the ACLU interpreted the decision as an attempt to reverse Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion. In deciding to ban late term abortions, the majority simply said that women, and their partners, should make abortions decisions before the third trimester, or after six months. Banning late term abortions doesn't argue with a woman's right to choose, rather limits the time frame for terminating pregnancy. “The Roberts' court has moved with lightening speed to roll back fundamental rights,” said Steven R. Shapiro, legal director for the ACLU, overstating the extent to which Roberts' court has sought to undo Constitutional protections.

      Democratic presidential candidate former Sen. John R. Edwards (D-N.C.) raised red flags about the prospects of more conservatives on the High Court. “If a conservative Republican president has the opportunity to replace a mainstream justice with one more right-wing vote, this country would be in a lot of trouble,” said Edwards, making his case for why voters should pick a Democratic president. That's the same argument that former Democratic nominee Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) gave in 2004 before Bush won a second term. Despite rulings that displease liberals, the 54-year-old Roberts has conducted himself with remarkable fairness and balance during his first two years on the High Court. Roberts has “a better sense of what it takes to form a majority coalition and to keep it,” said conservative Pepperdine University law professor Douglas W. Kmiec, impressed with Roberts' maturity.

      Striking down provisions of the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform act, Roberts sided with the free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. “We give the benefit of the doubt to speech not censorship,” said Roberts, voting with the majority to allow unions or corporations to broadcast preelection ads that mention candidates' names. Yet liberal critics believe restricting union and corporate-funded campaign ads naming candidates reduces undo influence before elections. Those same critics want to restrict conservative voices in talk radio believing they also unduly influence voters. Liberal advocates of restrictions on free speech only do so when it's to their advantage. Restricting conservative talk shows runs counter to every First Amendment principle imaginable. It's not the Bill of Rights' fault that talk radio listeners prefer conservatives.

      Roberts' so-called “conservative” court handed the White House a big defeat, forcing the Environmental Protection Agency to consider limits on greenhouse gasses under existing pollution laws. Apart from permitting abortion, there's no more liberal act than promoting the environment. Roberts sided with environmentalists redefining carbon dioxide, a major component of greenhouse gasses, as a pollutant. In recent development, the High Court agreed to hear a case involving Guantanamo Bay prisoners, denied habeus corpus, or the legal right to petition a court. Because the Roberts' willingness to deal with Guantanamo, the White House signaled it's closer to shutting down the public relations eyesore. Agreeing to hear cases of Guantanamo's “enemy combatants,” opens the door for lawyers to argue in federal court that blocking habeus corpus runs counter to the U.S. Constitution.

      Liberals may not like most decisions under Roberts' court. But that's a fry cry from saying the court shows conservative bias. There's no question that some justices like Antonin G. Scalia and Clarence Thomas vote along ideological lines but most vote on complex, substantive and convincing legal arguments. It's a mistake to think because either liberals or conservatives favor or oppose a particular issue, justices only vote their ideology. No conservative wants to extend legal rights to Guantanamo's “enemy combatants.” Nor do conservatives—especially the White House—wish to include carbon dioxide or greenhouse gasses as a regulated pollutant. Complex constitutional issues have many sides, supported or opposed by both liberals and conservatives. Whether liberals or conservatives like the outcome, Roberts fulfilled his promise of balance and impartiality.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2005 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.