NAD Goes on Record as Opposing Roberts Nomination

Silver Spring, MD -- The National Association of the Deaf (NAD) Board of Directors recently voted to oppose the nomination of John Roberts for the United States Supreme Court. This vote was taken after a thorough analysis of his public record and legal career, civil rights issues important to deaf and hard of hearing individuals, including disabled persons.

Individuals with disabilities have serious concerns with the nomination of Roberts for the position of Supreme Court Chief Justice. As a judge, a private lawyer, a special assistant to the Attorney General, and a deputy Solicitor General, John Roberts repeatedly argued to narrow the protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act and other civil rights laws. He has given a very limited scope to the powers that allow Congress to pass civil rights laws, and to limit remedies under civil rights laws.

This includes the opinion of Roberts that that a deaf student was not entitled to an interpreter in Board of Education v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982). In that case, Amy Rowley, an eight year old deaf student, sought to have her school provide a sign language interpreter. The trial court ruled that federal law required the state to provide an interpreter. The appeals court agreed. Roberts, while at the U.S. Justice Department, wrote a memo to the U.S. Attorney General criticizing these court decisions. Roberts stated that the "lower courts, in an exercise of judicial activism, used the vague statutory language to overrule the board and substitute their own judgment of appropriate educational policy." Even the conservative Justice Department of that time disagreed with this view and filed a brief supporting the student. The U.S. Supreme Court held that the student was not entitled to an interpreter because she was benefiting from her school instruction and federal law did not require the state to maximize the potential of each student with a disability.

"The confirmation of John Roberts to the U.S. Supreme Court would not advance justice for deaf and hard of hearing individuals including disabled persons" said President Andrew J. Lange of the National Association of the Deaf.  "I urge NAD members to ask their Senators to reject Robert’s nomination. You can take action online at: http://www.nad.org/OpposeRoberts [2]."

NAD Chief Executive Officer Nancy J. Bloch added: "The next U.S. Supreme Court justice may well serve on the Court until the middle part of this century. The stakes are very high; Supreme Court decisions result in a lasting impact upon the every day lives of all Americans."

"We were very disappointed that Judge Roberts' chose to avoid responding to the questions concerning civil rights," continued Bloch. "Instead of explaining his views on civil rights, Judge Roberts chose to avoid answering these questions. His evasive responses mainly focused on his youth as a lawyer at the time and his claim to have been only a staff lawyer, when in fact throughout his service, Judge Roberts often advised and made recommendations to U.S.  Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush on administrative policy and strategic approaches to civil rights matters. Our concerns are naturally heightened."

Senator Arlen Specter, the Republican Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee said it best when Roberts refused to answer directly questions on the Americans with Disabilities Act when he said "Frankly, I thought the committee and the Senate were entitled to answers on those questions, but Judge Roberts declined to answer."

The NAD concurs with Chairman Specter that Roberts should have more fully answered questions on critical civil rights issues. Unlike Specter, however, the NAD believes that answers should be sought before Roberts is approved.

Individuals can find an updated analysis of Judge Roberts’ Disability Record at
http://www.aapd.com/News/SCvacancy/updateroberts.html [3]

Individuals can find excerpts from Roberts’ testimony on disability issues at http://www.aapd.com/News/SCvacancy/indexSCvacancy.php [4]

For more information on other judicial nominations, see:
http://www.nad.org/judicial [5]