WASHINGTON -- Before entrusting Judge John G. Roberts with a lifetime position on the Supreme Court, the Senate must be able to determine whether he will uphold the fundamental principles of our Constitution and laws to continue our nation's march of progress or whether he will adopt a cramped and contorted view of our Constitution that will turn back the clock.
To help us perform our constitutional duty, Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee have requested information on 16 of the cases that Roberts handled as deputy solicitor general from 1989 to 1993. The information relates directly to his personal views on -- and his views on the courts' role in enforcing -- civil rights, disability rights, women's rights and other fundamental rights guaranteed by laws and the Constitution.
As deputy solicitor general -- the No. 2 job in the office that represents the United States in Supreme Court and other federal cases -- Roberts represented all the people of the United States; the people are entitled to access his records from that time. The White House knows his positions, yet it continues to withhold documents.
The records of these 16 cases have become all the more important because of publicly released information about Roberts' policy views during an earlier time. As a young but high-ranking political appointee in the Reagan administration, Roberts was involved in setting policy on issues of civil rights -- including those as fundamental as the right to vote and to be free from discrimination based on race, gender, national origin and disability.
Specifically, and contrary to the intent of overwhelming majorities in both the House and the Senate, it appears that Roberts proposed a very narrow and crabbed interpretation of the Voting Rights Act that would essentially eviscerate the meaning of that law.
Fortunately, his view did not prevail. But if a nominee to the Supreme Court believes in such a strained and narrow interpretation of such a fundamental right, then I believe he is not qualified to serve in that important position.
During the early Reagan years, Roberts repeatedly advanced narrow interpretations that would have undermined landmark and hard-won laws Congress passed to prohibit discrimination. As a young lawyer, Roberts advised the White House to delay fair-housing legislation. He urged the Justice Department not to intervene in a pending case and opposed a claim of gender discrimination, even though the assistant attorney general for civil rights, William Bradford Reynolds, believed the claim was based on "a very strong record" of gender discrimination.
We already know that as deputy solicitor general Roberts advocated some of the same positions he took as a young lawyer in the Justice Department. The Senate has requested information about Franklin v. Gwinnett , in which the Supreme Court unanimously rejected Roberts' argument to limit remedies available under Title IX to a teenage girl who had suffered flagrant sexual abuse.
A nominee to the Supreme Court must demonstrate that he has a core commitment to constitutional rights and liberties. He must show that he is in the mainstream of modern judicial thought and that he would not use an ideologically motivated interpretation of our Constitution or laws to reverse the hard-fought gains we have made to make this nation more just.
Judge Roberts' early record raises serious questions about his commitment to core constitutional values. The Senate must have the requested information to fully and faithfully execute its constitutional obligation.
Edward M. Kennedy , a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is a Democrat representing Massachusetts. Confirmation hearings are scheduled to begin Sept. 6.
