NARAL takes the wrong approach
NARAL Pro-choice America is running an anti-Roberts ad that accuses John Roberts of filing a brief in support of abortion clinic bombers. Factcheck.org, a non-partisan project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center, claims “the ad is false.” The key passage:
“The ad uses the classic tactic of guilt by association, linking Roberts with "violent fringe groups" and a "convicted . . . bomber" because he made the same legal arguments as they did in the case. But, contrary to the ad's message, Roberts didn't argue in favor of them or their actions.”
There is no doubt the ad takes significant liberties with the facts:
- The footage used was filmed seven years after the brief was filed, with no pertinent disclaimer.
- The ad implies that Roberts filed the brief privately (“Supreme Court nominee John Roberts filed court briefs supporting…”); in fact, he co-authored the brief as a Deputy Solicitor General of the United States.
- The ad claims that John Roberts excused violence and supported abortion clinic bombing. In truth, he was in legal agreement with clinic protestors – not bombers – regarding a statutory interpretation question.
In addition, the ad (and NARAL’s documentation in support of the spot) distorts the legal issue. The United States’ amicus brief conceded that the clinic protestors trespassed on clinic property in violation of state law. The question presented in the case, however, was whether the clinic protestors had violated a particular federal statute. The government argued that the protestors were not in violation of the 1871 Ku Klux Klan Act – a federal law passed specifically to punish those who conspire to commit racial discrimination. It’s telling that the NARAL version of the facts doesn’t even include the words state or federal. They have gone out of their way to obfuscate the legal issue in order to focus attention on the political outcome.
With ads like this one on the air, it will be virtually impossible to have a meaningful, even-tempered national discussion of John Roberts’ legal philosophy and its implications for American law. Also, it undermines the Democratic Senators’ request that the White House release all of Roberts’ government work product. If NARAL wants to oppose John Roberts’ nomination, it should articulate clearly the reasons for its opposition to Roberts’ judicial philosophy or his ability to weigh cases impartially. It does the public and Senate Democrats a disservice to do so by making questionable, or even false, accusations.
The citation for the case is 506 U.S. 263.
Advertisement
If NARAL really wanted to torpedo the nomination they could come out in full support for John Roberts because they have learned that President Bush does not want Roe vs. Wade overturned because of the political fallout, and that he has secretly been assured that Roberts will uphold Roe vs. Wade.
August 10, 2005 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, there's been plenty of questions about where Roberts stand on Roe, on judicial philosophy, on gay rights, and on economic regulation. The paper reported the other day about his overturning a court ruling so as to allow Guantanamo to stand above the law. How come there's no discussion of this, as there was for others in the Bush torture crew?
August 10, 2005 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bitch Ph.D. has <A HREF="http://bitchphd.blogspot.com/2005/08/still-more-on-nar al-ad.html">a post up containing NARAL's response</A> to factcheck.org.
I think her point at the end is right on: "What's really bothersome about all of this is that now we're wasting so much effort talking about the *ad* and none talking about Roberts's candidacy. I, for one, vow to get back to the actual issue at hand from here on out."
August 10, 2005 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, jhaber. There should be more discussion about Roberts' approach to Executive authority questions, in part because he has written or joined judicial opinions on point.
I want to add two links that discuss the NARAL ad:
http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/campaignforthecourt/2005/08/naral
_ad_reacti.html
http://www.sctnomination.com/blog/archives/2005/08/roberts_views_
i.html
Also, if any TPM reader has a different perspective on the NARAL ad, I'd love to hear it.
August 10, 2005 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
In my experience, I find that factcheck.org often takes a false "equal time" approach to their analysis, where if they rip into one side of an issue, they feel obligated to rip into the other side as well, regardless of whether both sides are equally deserving of being ripped into. I first noticed this during the 2004 election.
Being a referee requires that you call them as you see them, not that you penalize each side equally.
August 10, 2005 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look, I'm not here to defend a false or misleading ad, but Republicans will take care of the ad, so why should we be helping them out? I mean, really are there too few false/misleading assertions coming from the Roberts supporters to keep our side busy?
And the only place a "meaningful, even-tempered national discussion" about this appointment takes place is at your local "far-to-rich-to-really-be-affected-by-government-interventio n" rotary club meeting or Ivy League classroom with a disproportionate amount of privileged white youths. The swing Supreme Court justice on a great many issues just retired, and a healthy 50-year old who has a good 25-35 working years in him has been nominated to be her replacement. This is professional politics at the highest level. Being even-tempered cedes miles of ground to our opponents.
When are liberals going to get out of fantasyland and realize that their delusional...er utopian view of government is a hurting the very people who they want to defend their homes, their jobs, their health care, and their lives?
For a second, I just wish you people could sit in the room with these Republican strategist and listen to them laugh at your utter lack of political savvy.
Gone are the days of great Democratic strategists like LBJ. My favorite of the many great LBJ stories comes from an early Senatorial race where he asked his press secretary to spread a rumor that his opponent who raised livestock had sex with his pigs. The press secretary said to LBJ, "We can't say that; it's not true!" LBJ replied, "God damn, I know it's not true. I just want the see the SOB deny it!"
Politics is dirty - it always has been, and the nature of it, ensures that it always will be. Instead of trying to put lipstick on the pig or pretending it's a beautiful black stallion, face reality and devote your energy to manipulating the game. We already do this. We just suck at it, in comparison to Republicans.
August 10, 2005 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink