Progressive Minds

I remember being a freshman in college when the confirmation hearings for Clarence Thomas began, after he was nominated by Bush 41 to be the next Justice on the Supreme Court.

And although I had always paid attention to world events, I wasn't as politically minded then as I am today. Admittedly, I didn't study Clarence Thomas' record. All I saw was an African-American man being elevated to the highest court in the land, and I was proud.

Then Thomas' confirmation hearings began, and I was glued to the t.v. when he confronted the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee and declared himself the victim of a "high-tech lynching."

I learned a very valuable lesson from the Clarence Thomas debacle: just because someone looks like me, or shares my skin color, doesn't necessarily mean they represent my values or my interests.

The Supreme Court is often the last stop a person makes when they are seeking legal recourse; when they feel justice has not been served elsewhere. Which makes it all the more important that we have Supreme Court justicies inside the mainstream of American jurisprudence.

I hope the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee will step up and ask the tough questions of Judge John G. Roberts when his confirmation hearings begin. If they believe he is outside the mainstream, or that his personal views will preclude him from rendering justice, then they have the obligation to stop his confirmation.

On behalf of the first Bush administration, Roberts advocated for overturning Roe V. Wade, saying he thought the case had been decided incorrectly. In 2003, however, during his confirmation hearing for his current position as an appellate judge, he said he thought Roe v. Wade was "settled law."

But Roberts shouldn't be allowed to get away with the "settled law" explanation now that he is nominee for the Supreme Court. Why? Lower courts are mandated to follow settled law. If they don't, they risk having their decisions overturned by the Supreme Court.

But the ball-game is different on the Supreme Court. Supreme Court Justices can "re-settle" law (as they did in Brown v. Board of Education, which overturned Plessy v. Ferguson).

So the question for Roberts is: will his personal views on abortion lead him to try to "re-settle" Roe v. Wade? Where does he stand on issues like affirmative action?

Before they move hastily to confirm Roberts, the Senate Judiciary Committee must get the answers to these questions!