ALSO VISIT

ROBERTS NAMED TO REPLACE O'CONNOR ON SUPREME COURT
19 July 2005

John Roberts, currently a judge on the DC Circuit Federal Court of Appeals, has been named by Pres. George W. Bush to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Though some believe his nomination will be less contentious than other controversial "front-runners" discussed in recent days, liberals have criticized Roberts for his stance on abortion and on the separation of church and state, and he has been called "a corporatist", and war opponents have criticized his siding with denying Geneva protections to Guantánamo detainees.

Roberts' nomination to the federal bench was not smooth-sailing, and though ultimately, he received broad support in confirmation, his nominations were halted more than once prior to even receiving a vote. He may prove yet to be a controversial figure, having co-authored a brief calling for Roe v Wade to be overturned, saying it was "wrongly decided".

But as far as his personal stance, he said during 2003 hearings for confirmation to his current post: "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent."

In crucial cases during recent years, Roberts has sided with the Bush administration in some of its most controversial arguments, including cases where critics say the White House sought extraconstitutional powers, such as prolonged detention without charge and the reduction of habeas corpus rights and the power to maintain a veil of secrecy over policy meetings with corporate executives.

Only last Friday, he joined a ruling on his appeals court which stated "The protections of the 1949 Geneva Conventions do not apply to al-Qaida and its members, so a former driver for Osama bin Laden does not have a right to its provisions", in the words of AP writer Pete Yost. Lawyers for the accused said the ruling "is contrary to 200 years of constitutional law."

In a case testing the constitutionality of the Endangered Species Act, Roberts wrote a dissenting opinion, and many fear his position on environmental protections would be a radical limitation on the right of Congress to promote conservation or mandate a clean environment. At least one case has garnered attention as a sign he would not be purely right-leaning in his positions: he brought hearings for welfare recipients who had lost their benefits. [For more: AP]