You know, I have for the most part stayed away from the Roberts debate. I've felt that the energy required to stop his nomination just wasn't worth it.
However, in light of his views on women's rights, I must change my position. His views about women disqualify him. Period.
Speaking for half of the human race, no man should be on the Supreme Court who thinks women shouldn't be lawyers. The fact that Robert's wife is an attorney is irrelevant.
According to the Washington Post ? 'Supreme Court nominee John Roberts consistently opposed legal and legislative attempts to strengthen women's rights during his years as a legal adviser in the Reagan White House in the 1980s, disparaging what he called "the purported gender gap" and, at one point, questioning "whether encouraging homemakers to become lawyers contributes to the common good."'
This demonstrates a bias that will negatively color absolutely every decision that Roberts might make that even remotely affects women's rights.
And ? as with Jesse Helms ? we all know that this type of attitude about women and their roles is a fundamental, core belief. As such, no matter the protests to the contrary, this belief structure is rigid and unchanging. In other words, if he believed this in the 80's he'll still believe it in his 80's.
I don't want a man who thinks like Roberts making decisions about my civil rights. I don't need to know what he feels about abortion. I don't need to know his philosophy on judicial activism. I don't even need to know whether or not he thinks enemy combatants have civil rights. His negative views of women are enough to force me to oppose his nomination.
Roberts' nomination needs to be withdrawn. If President Bush insists on promoting a inherently sexist judge, then it is the responsibility of every senator in Washington to stand up to protect my civil rights and say ?No?.
So says this 47-year-old divorced, self-employed, mother of 2 teenagers.
Written by Angie Pratt http://www.politicalposts.com
However, in light of his views on women's rights, I must change my position. His views about women disqualify him. Period.
Speaking for half of the human race, no man should be on the Supreme Court who thinks women shouldn't be lawyers. The fact that Robert's wife is an attorney is irrelevant.
According to the Washington Post ? 'Supreme Court nominee John Roberts consistently opposed legal and legislative attempts to strengthen women's rights during his years as a legal adviser in the Reagan White House in the 1980s, disparaging what he called "the purported gender gap" and, at one point, questioning "whether encouraging homemakers to become lawyers contributes to the common good."'
This demonstrates a bias that will negatively color absolutely every decision that Roberts might make that even remotely affects women's rights.
And ? as with Jesse Helms ? we all know that this type of attitude about women and their roles is a fundamental, core belief. As such, no matter the protests to the contrary, this belief structure is rigid and unchanging. In other words, if he believed this in the 80's he'll still believe it in his 80's.
I don't want a man who thinks like Roberts making decisions about my civil rights. I don't need to know what he feels about abortion. I don't need to know his philosophy on judicial activism. I don't even need to know whether or not he thinks enemy combatants have civil rights. His negative views of women are enough to force me to oppose his nomination.
Roberts' nomination needs to be withdrawn. If President Bush insists on promoting a inherently sexist judge, then it is the responsibility of every senator in Washington to stand up to protect my civil rights and say ?No?.
So says this 47-year-old divorced, self-employed, mother of 2 teenagers.
Written by Angie Pratt http://www.politicalposts.com
