Can liberal activists set aside their tactics and play fair?     9/1/2005

CWA exposes the left’s attempts to defame Judge John Roberts.

MEMO

TO: CWA Constituents
FROM: Wendy Wright, Senior Policy Director, and Lanier Swann, Director of Government Relations
RE: Attacks on Judge Roberts from the Left
DATE: September 1, 2005

Either liberal activists are reading Concerned Women for America’s (CWA) memos – and following them to a T – or they don’t realize their tactics have been exposed. CWA’s Chief Counsel Jan LaRue predicted recent tactics by the left to defame Supreme Court Chief Justice nominee Judge John Roberts and outlined in her paper, The Left's Book on Judicial Warfare: Dismay-Demand-Distort-Defame-Delay. LaRue’s paper details the left’s strategy to defeat President Bush’s judicial nominees.

“In order to convince Americans that they deserve to have what they demand, the left usually casts the demand as a ‘right,’ ‘reasonable,’ ‘traditional,’ ‘constitutional’ or ‘necessary’ in order to make a decision about the nominee. Most of the time, it's simply for the purpose of delaying the confirmation process,” writes Mrs. LaRue.

This week the National Women’s Law Center was the latest liberal group to join in the piling on. Claiming to represent all women, it released a “report” which merely rehashes the same talking points used by other liberal groups, and that have already been debunked by experts.

“It appears – once again – that radical feminists, who push their own ideological agenda in the name of ‘women’s rights,’ cannot accept the fact that they do not speak for all women. Millions of women oppose their agenda and are deeply offended at their elitist claim to speak on our behalf. CWA, the nation’s largest public policy women’s organization, owes its success in part to women seeking an alternate voice from radical feminists,” says Wendy Wright, Senior Policy Director for CWA.

This is not the first time conservatives have seen such attacks or sweeping arrogance. Liberals’ comparison of Roberts as a kinder, more refined “Bork” reveals their true intentions. In 1987 Judge Robert Bork was a qualified candidate who had been appointed by President Reagan to fill a Supreme Court vacancy. In the opening salvo to discredit and defame Judge Bork, Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) took to the floor of the Senate to condemn him. As the process continued, it became clear that Bork was being forced into a bizarre new form of political campaign rather than a nomination.

Liberal groups realize they must rely on the courts to impose their “values.” Their agenda cannot tolerate an independent judiciary that seeks solutions from the Constitution as it’s written. And so, Judge Bork was expected to answer campaign-style questions raised by his opponents designed to defeat his “candidacy” rather than to reveal his judicial philosophy. In the end, his nomination failed.

Judge Bork’s defeat became blood in the water to the sharks.

Some of the same tactics are now being employed in the current nomination of Judge Roberts. And those attacks have escalated with Judge Roberts' nomination to be the next Chief Justice, replacing the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Despite the deserved praise and support he is receiving from respected and diverse people, he is being attacked just like Judge Bork was years ago. The attacks are both predictable and without merit. Roberts is being bombarded with irrelevant issues – failed policy items that liberals refuse to let go – and demands that he be questioned in ways that would politicize the Supreme Court. Liberal leaders then portray a refusal to play into this politicization of the Supreme Court as a reason for voting against him.

The left has expressed disappointment that a President who respects the Constitution dared to nominate to the Supreme Court a person who respects the Constitution. But consider this: Conservatives treated ultra-liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg with dignity and respect throughout her nomination by former President Clinton. So the question is, can liberal activists set aside their divisive, angry tactics and play fair?

For more on the confirmation process, click here.

Printer Friendly Version

Recent Articles

Supreme Court Back in Session

Protect Children, Not Charlatans

Constitutional Blunder

Enormous Implications in Medellín Supreme Court Case

Alarming: The Dissent's Opinion in Gonzales v. Carhart

CWA President Wendy Wright Reacts to the Court’s PBA Decision

O'Connor Connects Court Critics to Cookie Caper

A Brief Look at the Arguments in Gonzales v. Carhart

A Brief Look at the Arguments in Gonzales v. Carhart

The U.S. Supreme Court Begins its 2006-2007 Term (4:22)