WASHINGTON -- The liberal advocacy group Alliance for Justice yesterday announced its opposition to Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. after what the group's president, Nan Aron, said was an "extensive analysis," which showed that Roberts has "sought to keep the courts from vigorously enforcing individual rights and freedoms."

		Previous coverage First liberal group states stance against Roberts (8/25/05) Abortion rights ad assailing Roberts is pulled (8/12/05)

The alliance's decision to fight President Bush's choice of Roberts to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was not surprising, given the central role the group has played in marshalling opposition to many of the president's appellate court nominees.

In voicing its opposition, the alliance joined two other major liberal groups -- People for the American Way and the abortion rights advocacy group NARAL Pro-Choice America -- and raised many of the same concerns as they have about Roberts' record.

All three groups are part of a mostly Democratic umbrella group known as the Coalition for a Fair and Independent Judiciary.

Though many in Washington see Roberts' chances of being confirmed as strong, the alliance released a 100-page report detailing their reasons for opposing him, based primarily on the nominees' memos and writings as special assistant to former Attorney General William French Smith and an associate counsel to former President Ronald Reagan. The group also analyzed legal briefs Roberts submitted as principal deputy solicitor general under former President George H.W. Bush and his opinions during the past two years as a judge on the D.C. Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals.

The White House has been dismissive of advocacy groups' attempts to use Roberts' memos from the 1980s as grounds to oppose him now, noting that the memos may reveal his method of legal analysis but not necessarily his personal views, since he was serving in jobs where he was asked to advocate for the administration point of view.

But in remarks yesterday, Aron said her group was deeply concerned about the instances in which Roberts questioned the right to privacy in various writings -- suggesting that his seating on the high court could ultimately jeopardize the Roe v. Wade decision upholding a woman's right to an abortion.

She also charged that Roberts has "opposed equal rights for women with scorn and derision." For example, Aron was critical of a 1982 memo in which Roberts argued against Justice Department intervention in a case that questioned whether the Kentucky prison system gave its women prisoners the same opportunities for vocational training as it offered men.

In his memo, Roberts wrote that "if equal treatment is required, the end result in this time of tight state prison budgets may be no programs for anyone." The Justice Department disagreed with his advice and joined the lawsuit, and the courts eventually found that the Kentucky program did discriminate on the basis of sex.

Asked why the alliance did not withhold its critique until after the Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing for Roberts next week, Aron said that even though the nominee's papers from his U.S. solicitor general's office tenure have not been published, her group thinks "a complete enough picture of John Roberts has emerged to suggest that his views are out of step with women's rights, civil rights, the right to privacy and other fundamental rights."

"The 'glass ceiling' and other obstacles to true equality for women, people of color, persons with disabilities are still there. The wage gap between women and men, whites and African Americans, whites and Hispanics is still extremely wide," she said. "Putting Judge Roberts on the Supreme Court in place of Sandra Day O'Connor -- a defender of women's rights, civil rights, disability rights, the right to privacy -- is certain to undermine any effort to right these wrongs and will jeopardize hard-fought gains made over the last 75 years."

The Republican National Committee yesterday dismissed the alliance's announcement as "over-hyped attacks from the left." GOP spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt said: "It's hardly surprising that the Alliance for Justice would join PFAW and NARAL in their obligatory opposition to Judge Roberts. Nan Aron first attacked Judge Roberts a mere 27 minutes after he was nominated, and today's Alliance for Justice announcement is the continuation of a false smear campaign borne of a political agenda in lockstep with the Michael Moore wing of the Democrat Party."

Sean Rushton, executive director of the conservative group Committee for Justice added: "As we have said all along, the radical interest groups were pre-determined to attack any conservative nominated to the court. Their united opposition was never in doubt, and their tired and predictable demonization campaign is under way. Their clients do not fund them to be fair and objective, but one can only cry wolf so many times."

The Coalition for a Fair and Independent Judiciary, which includes the alliance, began meeting after Bush was elected to plan how its organizations would oppose any Supreme Court nominee he might choose whom they considered to be a foe of abortion rights or out of the mainstream.

Somewhat surprisingly, many groups in the coaltion, including the alliance, have not yet advertised against Roberts. Yet when Aron was asked whether that meant that liberal groups had conceded Roberts' eventual confirmation, she demurred. "We are resorting to many different ways and outlets to get our views out," she said. "We're just, at this point, not doing advertising. If the need arises, we will do it."

Asked whether she trusted the judiciary panel's chairman, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., who supports abortion rights, to handle the upcoming confirmation hearings effectively, Aron said she did. "He knows that whoever he votes to put on the Supreme Court will be there for decades and decades, and that choice is not reversible. So I have confidence in him as well as the other senators on the committee," she said.