7. How many documents from the total released by the National Archives did members of the Standing Committee review for themselves, or did they just rely on the report of the Reading Committees? ANSWER The Standing Committee's principal investigator reviewed all document indices and representative substantive documents authored by the nominee that were made available by the National Archives. The review by our investigator took well over 100 hours. She selected documents for the Chair to review, who then forwarded documents for review by both the Northwestern Reading Committee and the members of the Standing Committee. After a thorough evaluation of this additional material, the Northwestern Reading Committee did not change its opinion of the nominee, and the Standing Committee did not choose to change its rating of “Well-Qualified.” Website: www.abilitycenter.org DEFIANCE OFFICE: 1935 E. Second Street Suite C Defiance, Ohio 43512 419.782.5441 (VTTY) 419.782.9231 (Fax) 877.209.8336 (Toll Free) OTTAWA COUNTY 400 West Third Street Port Clinton, Ohio 43452 419.734.0330 (V/Fax) BOARD OF TRUSTEES: Karen Ashford Nancy Atkins David Bakle, Sr. Jonathan Bartholomy Richard Brown Dawn Christensen Melissa Emery Brian Fitch Pam Howell-Beach Phyllis Lovitt Dr. Colleen Mandell Ned Neuhause! Sean O'Mara Craig Roberts Mark Stutter Dr. William Wolfe, Sr. Timothy Harrington September 1, 2005 Honorable Senator Arlen Specter Chairman Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 Honorable Senator Patrick Leahy Ranking Member Committee on the Judiciary Dear Senator Specter and Senator Leahy: On behalf of the undersigned disability, aging, civil rights and social justice organizations, we write to you regarding the nomination of John G. Roberts to be an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. As the nomination and confirmation process now begins to unfold, we strongly urge you to consider the extraordinary impact that Judge Roberts, if confirmed, will have on the lives, liberties, and constitutional rights of the tens of millions of Americans with physical, mental, cognitive, and developmental disabilities. We applaud Senator Leahy's determination to obtain the release of We also applaud Senator Specter's letter of August 23rd to Mr. Roberts seeking his opinions on the "judicial activism" demonstrated by the Rehnquist Court, especially in regard to the narrowing of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the failure to respect the intent of Congress in crafting this historic and bipartisan law. Sen. Specter clearly outlined many of the concerns of the disability Mr. Roberts does, in fact, have a very different view of "judicial activism." In Board of Education v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982), an 8-year-old student who was deaf sought to have a sign language interpreter provided to assist her in school. The trial court ruled that federal law required the state to provide an interpreter for her. The appeals court affirmed. Roberts, while at the Justice Department, wrote a memo to the Attorney General criticizing these decisions. Roberts stated that the lower courts, in an exercise of Peer Support⚫ Independent Living Skills Training judicial activism, used the vague statutory language to overrule the board and substitute their own judgment of appropriate educational policy. Mr. Roberts' views in this regard are further demonstrated by his serving on the Legal Advisory Council of the National Legal Center For The Public Interest. This extreme organization has promoted the very "judicial activism" Sen. Specter has decried and has attacked ADA civil rights protections in numerous forums including its publication of a document belittling Congress' authority and entitled "Civil Rights and the Disabled: The Legislative Twilight Zone." Sadly, Mr. Roberts' record reveals that he would not only continue this trend of "judicial activism" but would further it, risking our remaining protections spared only by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor siding with the majority in 5-4 decisions including historic cases such as Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (2004). Our concerns are illustrated by Mr. Roberts' 2000 television interview, in which he declared that the Rehnquist Court was not "conservative" enough. Roberts, of course, later convinced the Rehnquist Court to eliminate ADA protections for millions of Americans with disabilities especially those with epilepsy, diabetes, mental illness and work-related injuries. In Toyota Motor Manufacturing v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184 (2002), Roberts successfully argued to the Supreme Court that a woman who had developed severe bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and tendonitis from working on the assembly line at an auto manufacturing plant could not prevail in a suit against her employer for failing to accommodate her disability. Roberts argued that she was not a person with a disability because she was not sufficiently limited in major life activities outside of her job. Roberts brief greatly distorted the extent of the woman's limitations. As a result of Roberts distortions, the Rehnquist Court held that the test for coverage under the ADA is a narrow one that must be strictly applied, and it articulated a more stringent test than the test set forth by Congress in the law itself. Indeed, Judge Roberts has a long history of advocating for the weakening of legal protections for children and adults with disabilities under the ADA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, Child Welfare Act, and education law, as well as the legal underpinnings of such laws including Congress commerce power. Attached, please find an overview compiled by the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law entitled John Roberts Problematic Record on Disability Rights. http://bazelon.org/issues/disabilityrights/judicialnominees/roberts.htm We share Sen. Specter's concerns that, in the Rehnquist Court, we are witnessing judicial activism to roll back federal protections including the ADA with the use of "manufactured rationales used by the Supreme Court to exercise the role of super legislature and make public policy decisions which is the core Congressional role under the Constitution." Based on his record, we are concerned that the ADA, a bipartisan law that seldom attracts public attention similar to the hot-button issues often debated in the context of Supreme Court confirmation hearings, might be further weakened should Judge John Roberts be confirmed. We call on the Senate Judiciary Committee to allow testimony from representatives of the disability community and to fully examine Judge Roberts record and views in regard to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and disability rights protections generally. Mailing Address 4500 Little Blue Parkway⚫ Independence, MO 64057 Phone (816) 795-8852⚫ Website AdvanceUSA.org • E-Mail info@AdvanceUSA.org September 6, 2005 Dear Senator, AdvanceUSA heartily supports the nomination and confirmation of Judge John Roberts, Jr. to the Supreme Court of the United States, and we urge you to do the same. The legal acumen and judicial temperament of Judge Roberts is distinguished and undeniable. His reputation for professionalism and skill is clear in light of the "well qualified” rating the American Bar Association granted him. His confirmation by the Senate in 2003 to the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals demonstrates the broad bi-partisan support he has received and now deserves. There have been many attacks on Judge Roberts subsequent to his nomination by President Bush on Tuesday, July 19, 2005. These attacks have ranged from the silly to the sinister, from the Roberts children's wardrobe to the anachronistic account of his legal opinions and an abortion opponent's illegal protest activity. The nomination of John Roberts followed consultation on an unprecedented scale by the White House. This nomination deserves the dignity and respect that is the underlying principle of the Senate's finest moments and tradition. Specifically, the nomination of John Roberts deserves fair and dignified hearings, vigorous factual debate, and a fair up-or-down vote by the full Senate in time for the commencement of the next Supreme Court term beginning Monday, October 3, 2005. AdvanceUSA requests that you use your influence and position as a United States senator to ensure that each of these components occurs. Further we urge you to vote in favor of Judge John Roberts' confirmation to the Supreme Court of the United States. Sincerely, Dr. Carl Herbster President cc: Senator Bill Frist, Majority Leader Senator Arlen Specter, Judiciary Committee Chairman Senator Rick Santorum, Senate Republican Conference Chairman Senator Mitch McConnell, Senate Majority Whip Senator Jon Kyl, Republican Policy Committee Chairman Bevan Dupont Circle NW ALLIANCEJUSTICE t 202.822.8070 t: 202.822.8088 August 3, 2005 Dear Senator, Americans want a Supreme Court justice who is committed to the independence of the Court, and who will protect individual rights, freedoms and legal safeguards. That is why the facts that are now being revealed about John Roberts' role in the Reagan Justice Department and White House are disturbing. They show a man deeply involved in legal and political decision-making, who was committed to cutting back our government's and our courts' role in protecting American's civil and constitutional rights. Coupled with Judge Roberts' limited record on the bench, the Reagan-era documents raise additional questions about the still largely unknown legal views that Judge Roberts holds. For senators to make a fully informed judgment about whether to confirm Judge Roberts to a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court, these questions require answers. The recently released Reagan-era documents cover only part of Judge Roberts' career in the early 1980s. The White House says that additional documents relating to Judge Roberts' service as Associate White House Counsel to President Reagan are forthcoming. But it has publicly refused to release any documents pertaining to Judge Roberts' service as the high-ranking, politically-appointed deputy in the Solicitor General's Office. The Judiciary Committee Democrats recently made a limited request for documents on sixteen of the cases the Solicitor General's Office handled during Judge Roberts' tenure. The White House must provide those documents and the remaining White House Counsel documents within a timeframe that allows Senators to examine them fully prior to the hearings. In addition, Judge Roberts must provide substantive answers about his legal views at his hearing. Without the documents and without meaningful answers, senators will not have the critical information they need to carry out their advice-andconsent duties as the Constitution envisions. The burden remains on Judge Roberts to demonstrate his commitment to an independent court that is protective of all Americans. It is the constitutional responsibility of senators to make sure that the American public learns the facts about Judge Roberts' legal philosophy -- his method of constitutional interpretation, his loyalty to precedent and his respect for our well-established freedoms and legal protections. |