Or he supports those who do. That’s what NARAL wants you to believe, despite its president’s comments to the contrary here. (“I want to be very clear that we are not suggesting Mr. Roberts condones or supports clinic violence. Iím sure he finds bombings and murder abhorrent. But still his ideological view of the law compelled him to go out of his way to argue on behalf of someone like Michael Bray, who had already been convicted of a string of bombings.” He didn’t go “out of his way”! He argued from his position as Deputy Solicitor General of the U.S.!)
The ad, which can also be viewed at the link above, absolutely does lead a person to think that Roberts supported Michael Bray’s bombing of abortion clinics. That is ridiculous on the face of it, which is probably why Ms. Keenan had to issue her weak disclaimer.
Sean Hannity had on his show the male(!) press director, I think it was, from NARAL, and pointed out (“Let me educate you”) that Roberts’ argument before the Supreme Court (which, by the way, ruled in favor of Roberts’ side) was seven years before the bombing identified in the NARAL ad. Not only is the ad misleading about Roberts’ views on abortion clinic violence, but it depicts two events separated by seven years as if they were related.
[See here for more context.]
But wait, there’s more! The brief in question, and the case in question, is only incidentally connected to abortion clinic violence, in that some names are common to both. [See this brief, also filed in the same case, by Feminists for Life–uh oh, Roberts’ wife belongs to that group!!] To accept NARAL’s spin, Roberts might as well have been Bray’s defense attorney. Let’s also be clear: Roberts argued a brief of the U.S. Government, whose employee he was at the time. That’s not to say Roberts did not agree with the brief; if you disagree fundamentally with your employer, perhaps you should find another job. However, it is misleading to speak as if Roberts was speaking only on behalf of himself, and not the government. Again, let’s emphasize this: the Supreme Court ruled in favor of those supported by the Government and the brief Roberts filed. Thus, whatever is said or implied about Roberts in the ad should also be applied to the Supreme Court (at least the six out of nine justices who wrote in favor).
Want more evidence that NARAL has made an ad that has no basis in reality or fact? Simply read the Court’s decision here.
The guy on Hannity ludicrously suggested, as have numerous Left wing politicians, that Bush should have appointed someone who fits Justice O’Connor’s profile; therefore, since O’Connor wrote in opposition to the case in question, that makes it all the worse! I would have punched my radio, but that would have made my hand hurt, and the guy wouldn’t have felt it.
Factcheck.org destroys any credibility the ad might have had here.
For a letter on what the Reagan White House (for whom Roberts also worked) thought about pardoning abortion clinic bombers see this, also from Factcheck.org.
The ad suggests that the hearers call their Senators to voice their opposition to someone who “supports violence against other Americans;” I’m inclined to do exactly the opposite.