Scarier and scarier
An article in today's New York Times claims that newly-nominated Judge Roberts could face some trouble at the Senate next month when his past views about constitutional rights to privacy -- or lack thereof -- are revealed.
Apparently, he's written a whole helluva lot "in opposition to a constitutional right to privacy, that has served as the basis for Supreme Court decisions protecting abortion and gay rights."
These rights to privacy -- which Roberts believed were not, and should not be, constitutionally guaranteed -- unfortunately include women's rights to safe, legal abortion. As the NY Times reminds us,
He was one of nine government lawyers listed on a brief urging the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade. We continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled," the brief said. "The court's conclusions in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion and that government has no compelling interest in protecting prenatal human life throughout pregnancy find no support in the text, structure or history of the Constitution.It just gets scarier and scarier...