Related articles and links |  1 of 6

Questions on John Roberts's abortion stance, but none regarding his wife
The country remains atwitter about where John Roberts stands on abortion. Democratic Senators are promising to grill him until he says how he'd vote on overturning Roe v. Wade. Religious activists are still assiduously avoiding the a-word, but are telling their supporters not to worry.

Some seem confused. The Los Angeles Times writes today, "Judge Roberts' public positions on abortion and Roe v. Wade appear to be inconsistent."

But as Christianity Today's Collin Hansen wrote yesterday, Roberts's comments on Roe v. Wade may be unclear, but it's not inconsistent to say that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, should be overruled, and is the settled law of the land. Here's the clue: His previous nomination hearings were for an appellate court position. Shortly after Roberts's now-famous declaration, "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land," he explained, "As the Constitution uses the term 'inferior court judge,' I'll be bound to follow the Supreme Court precedent regardless of what type of constructionist I, personally, might be." That is no longer quite so relevant when you're talking about a Supreme Court position. Then again, as Focus on the Family's James Dobson said, "To my knowledge Judge Roberts has never talked about abortion and he certainly has no rulings about it, so we don't know what his private views are."

But we sure know about his wife's views. The front page of today's Los Angeles Times declares, "Wife of Nominee Holds Strong Antiabortion Views." The piece mainly focuses on Jane Sullivan Roberts's longtime involvement with Feminists for Life of America, including serving as executive vice president from 1995 to 1999 and currently providing legal counsel on a pro bono basis.

She's also, says a "close friend" who apparently didn't want to be named, an "extremely, extremely devout Catholic."

What's missing from the Times story, however, is any actual quote from Jane Sullivan Roberts. The paper says she has written for the group's newsletter, but doesn't quote the articles (one article was on adoption; the Robertses have adopted two children).

And while the Times notes that "Jane Roberts graduated magna cum laude from the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Massachusetts, in 1976," the paper misses some interesting connections (including, The New York Times reports, Jane Roberts's role as trustee there, and the "frequent attendance" of both Robertses at school events). Holy Cross is also Clarence Thomas's alma mater (he graduated ninth in his class in '71), and that of increasingly prominent Catholic priest Paul Scalia ('92), son of Antonin. The other Roman Catholic Supreme Court justice, Anthony Kennedy, apparently has no ties to Holy Cross. Not bad for a Jesuit school with about 2,800 students (especially if you note its other famous alumni).

New York Times columnist David Brooks picks up the Catholic angle:

Confirmation battles have come to seem of late like occasions for bitterly divided Catholics to turn political battles into holy war Armageddons. Most of the main Democrats on the Judiciary Committee are Catholics who are liberal or moderate (Kennedy, Biden, Durbin, Leahy), and many of the most controversial judges or nominees are Catholics who are conservative (Scalia, Thomas, Pryor). When they face off, you get this brutal and elemental conflict over the role morality should play in public life.

Roberts is indeed a Catholic (if he's confirmed, there will be four on the court, three Protestants and two Jews), but he's not the sort to spark the sort of debate that leads to bitter Catholic vs. Catholic meshugas.

next page... |  1 of 6

July (Web-only) 2005, Vol. 49