Corporate Consulting
	Political Consulting
	About Raynard Jackson
	Recent Columns
	Raynard In The News
	Pictures
	Events
	Links
	Contact Us
	Main Page

Archive

Published: July 28, 2005

Roberts opposition too little too late
By Raynard Jackson, Guest Commentator
 
Community News Article
Issue: 7/28/05


As expected, a day after President George W. Bush nominated John G. Roberts to the U.S. Supreme Court, the liberal Black democratic machine (NAACP, Black Caucus, etc.) questioned Roberts' commitment to civil rights and expressed concern that the nation's highest court could shift dramatically to the right.

Their objections are based solely on the fact that he is a conservative. Extreme liberal professor from the University of Maryland, Ron Walters was quoted on Wednesday's BlackAmericaWeb.com's site: He's been consistent in providing the conservative movement with the legal resources to oppose civil rights," Walters said.

What constitutes the civil rights community? Can you be Black, conservative and still be a member? Well, I am! So, what Walters should say is the "liberal" civil rights community doesn't believe Judge Roberts is good for Black folks.

Judge Roberts, 50, has been on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit since June 2003 after being nominated by Bush. He was reported favorably out of the Senate Judiciary Committee by a vote of 16-3, and confirmed by the Senate for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals by unanimous consent. Where were the outcries about Roberts two years ago? Not a word from the NAACP.

Mr. Shelton continues, "In nominating Roberts, President Bush moves away from diversity on the High Court. With the retirement of Justice [Sandra Day] O'Connor, there will be only one woman justice. How can you be moving away from diversity when he admits you still have one woman on the court?

How many women do you need on the court to have diversity? How many Blacks? So, because Bush chose a White male, he is against diversity? Have you looked at his cabinet lately, Mr. Shelton? When you say nominate a "consensus" candidate, how do you define consensus?
Do you define consensus as letting the liberal Democrats have an equal voice in the final choice? The last time I read the U.S. Constitution, that was the sole choice of the president of the United States, with the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate. Nowhere did it mention radical liberal groups like the NAACP.

Notice the tone of the National Urban League's president, Marc H. Morial as quoted on its web site. "We have concerns about Judge John G. Roberts mainly because we have very little information on his judicial philosophy with respect to the important issues of affirmative action, voting rights and civil rights." Ah, now isn't this the purpose of having hearings before the Senate?

We in the Black community can no longer spout nonsensical rhetoric to oppose someone. We must make well-thought-out arguments based on facts; not emotion. Choosing someone for the Supreme Court is serious business and our actions must be consistent with that. Civil rights organizations continue to be an embarrassment to our community.
You can be against affirmative action and still support civil rights. You can be against set-asides, and still believe in equality. Since the radical liberal civil rights organizations claim they don't know enough about Judge Roberts' record, how then can they be opposed to him?
In the end, Judge Roberts will be confirmed and will be a fine justice. I am supremely sure of that.


About the Author

Raynard Jackson is president and CEO of Raynard Jackson & Associates, Inc., a political consulting/government affairs firm in Washington, D.C. RJA provides strategic advice and counsel to elected officials (White House, Congress), corporations and entrepreneurs.

Published: April 14, 2005