For at least a year before the nomination of Judge John G. Roberts to the Supreme Court, the White House was working behind the scenes to shore up support for him among its social conservative allies, quietly reassuring them that he was a good bet for their side in cases about abortion, same-sex marriage and public support for religion.
Yeah, so that kind of worries me.
Granted, the only other part of the article that mentions gay rights is this:
Mr. Leo said he told wary social conservatives that even though Judge Roberts had not ruled on abortion or other issues his other opinions showed “a respect for the text and original meaning and a presumption of deference to the political branches of government.” …
Mr. Leo said such narrow and deferential rulings are “going to comport better” with the restrained role that social conservatives want judges to play on questions about abortion, gay rights or religious displays, which they believed should be left to elected officials rather than the Supreme Court, Mr. Leo said.
Granted, there’s nothing specific there that says Roberts would vote for or against gay rights. But I won’t kid myself; as impressed as I am by him, he’s still a Bush nominee. So I’ll continue to hope what I’ve already been hoping for a while: that no same-sex marriage case comes before the Court in the near future. Regardless of the Court’s composition, one of two things would happen: either it would find bans on same-sex marriage constitutional, or it would find them unconstitutional and thereby practically guarantee passage of a constitutional amendment outlawing same-sex marriage. This is just not a good time for the Supreme Court to be ruling on gay marriage, period.
There are, of course, other gay rights issues that could come before the Court.
Anyway, we knew after last fall’s election results that things didn’t look good. At this point, we just have to keep our fingers crossed.
This nominee is a puzzler, that’s for sure. Which is the point, I think
Roberts doesn’t suggest an immediate knee-jerk right-winger — as far as we know. Currently he’s on a “charm offensive,” chatting up everyone in Congress. Consequently he’ll be confirmed without a struglle — even of the most superficial sort.
The bottom line is that even if he were about as “centerist” as Atilla the Hun the Republicans have the votes and hold the power. The real qeustion is what that power represents in the current context. The rise of the Right came in direct response to the success of the Left. And despite what Talk Radio may tell you, any number of issues aren’t “going back” to the way things were in the Bad Old Days.
Never forget that the Gay Liberation movement arose when The Closet was in full force of operation and being “out” was highly avant-garde. That’s not at all true today. Gay Marriage has become a “They Shall Not Pass” issue for the right. And while it will continue to inspire all manner of hue and cry at the end of the day it’s a done deal. “out” same-sex coupls exist in increasing number, and the fact that same-sex maraige is now legal in several major countries will break down the stateside door much sooner than the oppsition thinks.
But we shouldn’t kid ourseleves that Roberts won’t prove to be a problem one way or another. And we shouldn’t kid ourselves that orgs like the NLGTF and the HRC are nothing but PR efforts. Gay rights came from the grass roots, and some new seeding needs to be done on that grass.
For me, this goes way beyond same-sex marriage, or gay rights in general. This is about civil rights, the political process, and the courts. Conservatives don’t want courts to decide civil rights issues because it’s much easier for them to win their battles in state legislatures and the Congress. This is the only reason they decry judicial activism and talk about court deferring to the political branches of government. As if the courts weren’t more politicized all the time…