Bench Memos

NRO’s home for judicial news and analysis.

A Profile in Conservative Headaches


Washington Post:

…Specter’s maverick streak appears as strong as ever. He has signaled plans to ask the nominee pointed questions, and he endorsed a Democratic call for the Bush administration to release more documents related to Roberts. Moreover, Specter says he will use the hearing as a forum to rebuke the current Supreme Court — particularly conservative Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist — for “insulting” Congress in rulings in which Roberts played no role.

This Sounds Bad If True



Yet Mr. Schumer, who ranks 14th out of 18 members of the committee according to seniority, said yesterday that he has already secured a pledge from Mr. Specter and the ranking Democrat on the committee, Senator Leahy, that he will be allowed as much time as he wants.

“I explicitly asked both Senator Specter and Senator Leahy would I get as many rounds as I needed, and they said yes,” Mr. Schumer said. “So I expect to have many more rounds than two …


Witnesses--From Chairman Specter


Below, please find the TENTATIVE list of Majority witnesses and presenters who are scheduled to testify at the Nomination Hearing of John G. Roberts, Jr., of Maryland, to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. The presenters will introduce the nominee on Tuesday, September 6, 2005 and the outside witnesses are expected to testify on Friday, September 9, 2005.

NOTE: William Barr has been replaced with Dick Thornburgh.


* Sen. Warner
* Sen. Lugar
* Sen. Bayh

TENTATIVE Outside Witnesses

Panel 1

* Steve Tober, Chairman, ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary
* Tom Hayward, past-Chairman, ABA Standing Committee
* Pamela Bresnahan, ABA DC Circuit Representative/Investigator

Panel 2

* Dick Thornburgh, Attorney General 1988-1991
* Bruce Botelho, Mayor of Juneau, Alaska
* Jennifer Braceras, Commissioner on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and Visiting Fellow at the Independent Women’s Forum

Panel 3

* Catherine Stetson, Hogan and Hartson
* Maureen Mahoney, Latham and Watkins

Panel 4

* Elsa Cole, General Counsel, NCAA
* Peter Kirsanow, partner, Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff and Commissioner on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
* Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Hudson Institute

Panel 5

* Charles Fried, Harvard Law

* Christopher Yoo, Vanderbilt Law
* Patricia Bellia, Notre Dame Law

Panel 6

* Jay Sekulow, American Center for Law and Justice

Pinocchio Schumer


In 2003 Senator Schumer, along with Kennedy and Durbin, voted in the Senate Judiciary Committee against favorably reporting John Roberts’s D.C. Circuit nomination to the Senate floor. (There was not a roll-call vote on the Senate floor.) Yet today, according to an unofficial transcript of his speech on the Ginsburg Standard, Schumer stated:

“I continue to have an open mind about John Roberts and look forward to the hearings. I believe my fellow Democrats have an open mind, as well. . . . And let me make it clear, this is not a coy posture or political posture.”

No, it’s a blatantly mendacious posture.

Re: More on Will


Ramesh has characterized my position pretty well–though I might have used somewhat different words myself. And he’s certainly right that no one in the spectrum of conservatism represented here is simply against “judicial review” in toto. I should know since I probably come closest–or maybe Mark Levin wants to compete for the title.

Anyway, George Will should get out more. Here in his hometown this morning, I attended a panel of the Claremont Institute, at the APSA meeting, at which a variety of conservatives took a variety of views on constitutional issues, none of them as weak as the straw man arguments Will employed in his column this morning.

The panel was titled “A Justice Thomas Court?” Fittingly, there was much praise for Thomas’s jurisprudence–from Phillip Muñoz of North Carolina State for his opinion on religion under the First Amendment, from Jeremy Rabkin of Cornell for his dim view of the use of foreign legal sources in our constitutional law, and from commentators Paul Mirengoff of Power Line and Michael Uhlmann of Claremont remarking on the papers of Muñoz and Rabkin. The succeeding discussion, including audience members, revealed differences in the room regarding Thomas’s jurisprudence, regarding Justice Scalia’s by comparison, and regarding the proper relation of the Court in general to other institutions. An enlightening time was had by all. I wish George Will had been there. More, I wish he’d been there before he’d written his column for today. He’d have written a better one.


House Nudge


Press release:

WASHINGTON, D.C. – House Republican Conference Secretary John T. Doolittle (R-Calif.) today joined with several of his colleagues in sending a letter to Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) and Ranking Member Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) urging the Senate to confirm Judge John Roberts to the U.S. Supreme Court before the Court begins its session in October.

Along with Doolittle, 85 Members of the House signed the letter which said, “Judge Roberts’ distinguished record shows that he recognizes the appropriate role that the judiciary plays in a democratic system of government. Judges have a duty to interpret our laws and our Constitution rather than substitute their personal beliefs for the law. We believe Judge Roberts will interpret the Constitution rather than legislate from the bench.”

The letter went on to say, “America would be well served if Judge Roberts is confirmed before the Supreme Court begins its session in October.”

In recent weeks, Doolittle has expressed his support for Judge Roberts’ nomination.

“For too long now, Americans have been at the mercy of judges who continue to redefine the Constitution according to their personal agendas,” Doolittle said. “Unless we embrace judges who understand the preeminence of the Constitution, judicial activism will continue to weaken the backbone of America. Judge John Roberts is a man of character and a thoughtful conservative who will guard the God-given rights of all Americans.

“Judge Roberts should be confirmed by the United States Senate, and the American people have every right to expect an honest and civil confirmation process. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to provide a timely up or down vote for the President’s nominee,” Doolittle concluded.

President Clinton’s two nominations took an average of 58 days from nomination to confirmation. Over the past 30 years, the confirmation process has averaged 72 days from nomination to confirmation.

Judge Roberts was reported favorably out of the Senate Judiciary Committee by a vote of 16-3 and was confirmed by the Senate for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals by unanimous consent in 2003.

Ginsburg and the Ginsburg Standard


Senator Schumer and others on the Left are now feverishly trying to establish that Ruth Bader Ginsburg in her confirmation hearing did not in fact faithfully and consistently adhere to her stated rule of providing “no hints, no forecasts, no previews” about any issues that might come before the Court. This effort is amusingly beside the point. There is little or no point in parsing the counterexamples that Schumer and company provide, for, if true, they amount to an indictment of Ginsburg, not to an argument against the Ginsburg Standard. As Ginsburg declared in her opening statement at her confirmation hearing:

Because I am and hope to continue to be a judge, it would be wrong for me to say or to preview in this legislative chamber how I would cast my vote on questions the Supreme Court may be called upon to decide. Were I to rehearse here what I would say and how I would reason on such questions, I would act injudiciously.

Judges in our civil are [sic] in our system are bound to decide concrete cases, not abstract issues. Each case comes to court based on particular facts, and its decisions should turn on those facts and the covering law stated and explained in light of the particular arguments the parties or their representatives present. A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints, for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case; it would display disdain for the entire judicial process.

More on Will


In debates over judicial activism, “majoritarianism” is less often the standard raised by the critics of such activism than it is the bogeyman that the defenders are warning against. The anti-majoritarian features of American government to which Will points can therefore be viewed as bolstering the case against judicial activism. The consequence of a more restrained version of judicial review* is not unrestrained majoritarianism, since all kinds of checks on majorities remain–e.g., the two-chamber legislature, the division of power between the federal government and the states, the ability of intense minorities to punch above their weight.

*Note that on this blog, which I think represents conservative thought in this respect fairly well, nobody is simply against judicial review. Mark Levin, as he notes, has raised questions about its constitutional basis, and I take Matt Franck to be arguing for a version of judicial review more modest than the modern version. In Franck’s version, I take it, judges would be confined to setting aside laws that purport to require the judges to do something unconstitutional. This non-cooperation with unconstitutional laws would nullify laws to the extent that they require judicial cooperation to be effective. That kind of judicial review would have some real bite, even if it would be less expansive than the kind of judicial review to which we are accustomed.

Schumer Misleads


Sunstein on Roberts


In today’s WSJ (subscription required), University of Chicago law professor Cass Sunstein has an op-ed. The article posits a division between “fundamentalist” and “minimalist” conservatives. The former have an ideological commitment to restoring or remaking constitutional law, while the latter are content to address legal questions in small steps, “nudges not earthquakes,” and believe most social change should occur through democratic institutions, rather than the judiciary. On Roberts, Sunstein writes:

Many people feared President Bush would try to replace Sandra Day O’Connor, a minimalist conservative, with a nominee promoting an ambitious agenda for remaking American constitutional law. But there is not much evidence that the president’s choice, John Roberts, has such an agenda. In his two years on the federal bench, he has shown none of the bravado and ambition that characterize the fundamentalists. His opinions are meticulous and circumspect. He avoids sweeping pronouncements and bold strokes, and instead pays close attention to the legal material at hand. He is undoubtedly conservative. But ideology has played only a modest role in his judicial work. For example, he voted to allow a civil rights action to proceed against the D.C.-area subway system. In so voting, he rejected the claim, advanced by Reagan appointee David Sentelle, that Congress lacks the power to require the subway system to waive its sovereign immunity.
Splashing cold water on some media reporting of the younger Roberts’ views, Sunstein adds that “even in the heady 1980s, none of the young Mr. Roberts’ views was reckless or implausible: All of them could claim some existing legal support.”

Sunstein does not endorse Roberts in the op-ed, but he does not oppose him either. Rather, he cautions against premature opposition, and suggests liberals should keep an open mind.

The Roberts nomination is not welcomed by those who object to the rightward drift of the federal courts or believe that Justice O’Connor’s successor should be no more conservative than she. And on key issues, Judge Roberts will likely be on Justice O’Connor’s right. There is no assurance he will vote to uphold Roe, and it is most unlikely he will aggressively read the Constitution to protect vulnerable members of society.

But at this point in our history, the most serious danger lies in the rise of conservative judicial activism, by which the interpretation of the Constitution by some federal judges has come to overlap with the ideology of right-wing politicians. For those who are concerned about that kind of activism on the Supreme Court, opposition to the apparently cautious Judge Roberts seems especially odd at this stage. The far more reasonable path is to keep an open mind and to hope for a serious and substantive confirmation process. [Emphasis added.]

Sunstein’s caution may be notable because he has advised Senate Democrats on making ideology the basis for opposing Supreme court nominees and is the author of the soon-to-be-released book Radicals in Robes: Why Extreme Right-Wing Courts Are Wrong For America. On the other hand, the article stops short of backing Roberts’ confirmation, preserving Sunstein’s options to oppose Roberts should the hearings take an unwelcome turn, or should President Bush subsequently seek to elevate Roberts to chief justice.

That Will Column


I join Mark in finding it somewhat odd. Obviously Will believes that conservatives are overdosing on majoritarianism and that he is supplying a useful corrective. But all he has succeeded in doing is refuting the argument that judicial activism is wrong simply because it overrules temporary majorities of the public. His major refutation of that argument is that other features of government, such as the Senate, also have the power to overrule temporary majorities. But nobody actually makes the argument that Will refutes. Most conservatives who object to the anti-majoritarianism of judicial activism object to it because they believe it tilts government further away from majoritarianism than the Constitution, properly construed, does.

Useless Standards


George Will writes now and then about the judiciary, as he did today, and for the life of me I don’t know what principle he’s trying to advance. Today, he lectures that judicial activism is good sometimes. Well, that’s not exactly useful as a standard for judicial conduct and interpretation. But he never fails in taking a little shot at conservatives, who, in this instance, dare to question the origins of judicial review.

Questions, Good, Bad, and Indifferent


I’m blogging from Washington, D.C., site of the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association. On this, my first morning in town, in a city that is home to two great newspapers–one for each party!–the hotel where I’m staying (which will go unnamed, but think tasteless hamburger ads) brings me USA Today. Sigh.

Okay, I’ll read anything handy. On the op-ed page I find a box in which the editors have printed the questions various “experts” would ask John Roberts if they were on the Judiciary Committee. Seven questions in all, from five people, and only one and a half of them strike me as worth asking. Each question is followed by a paragraph from its author explaining why it’s such an important question.

The best question is from veteran Supreme Court advocate Alan Morrison, who wants to know “which opinions and which orders” Roberts would have joined in Bush v. Gore, and why. Excellent. That case revealed much about the thinking of all nine justices, and for those who recoil at the thought of inquiring about past cases that might be revisited, well, such a circumstance as the Florida recount controversy is unlikely to be repeated soon.

The second best question is from George Washington University law professor and all-around media guy Jonathan Turley, who wants to know if Roberts agrees with the Lawrence ruling overturning sodomy laws. But he spoils the question by beginning it this way: “Assuming that you believe that there is a constitutional right to privacy . . . ” But why assume that? If that’s an acceptable preface to the question, why not begin, “Assuming that there is a roving commission in the Constitution for judges to strike down laws of which they disapprove . . . “?

Tony Mauro of Legal Times wants to know whether Roberts–and not his clerks–will write his opinions. And he gets a second question, asking whether Roberts would favor “broadcast coverage of Supreme Court proceedings.” I assume he means TV cameras in the courtroom, since there already is “broadcast coverage” of the Court. Both questions are a waste of time. Does he expect Roberts to answer the first one by saying, “No, I’m looking forward to kicking back and making clerks do all the work like I did for Rehnquist years ago”? As for the second, it’s a typical journo’s question. But does anyone contend that the responsible performance of the Congress was actually improved by C-SPAN?

Marci Hamilton of Cardozo School of Law asks two questions. One poses the vague prospect–already ably debunked here by Gerry Bradley–of some conflict between what the law requires and the teachings of the Catholic church. The second aks for a largely vapid and predictable discourse on the meaning and value of the “rule of law.”

Saving the worst for last–as I do here–the newspaper gives us one question from the University of Chicago’s Cass Sunstein. The question itself appears harmless at first glance, asking what “weight” Roberts would give to the “original understanding” of the Constitution. But Sunstein defines that expression as referring to “the specific understandings of the people who wrote and ratified the founding document.” That adjective “specific” carries all of Sunstein’s bias here, since he appears to want us to think that on the “specifics” the founding generation was so much more retrograde than we progressive folks are nowadays.

What’s worse is Sunstein’s explanatory paragraph, in which he differentiates between good conservatives, who “dislike major changes in existing law,” as long as existing law is open to being changed a lot by liberal judges (think Lawrence again), and bad conservatives, who are “more radical” because they might think of reversing some of the gains made by the liberal agenda via the judiciary. This is well-known as the “ratchet effect”–the Left gets to change the Constitution, and “conservatives” must pledge to preserve the changes.

Sunstein gets the nod for the lamest, most transparently dishonest argument embedded in his question.

Too Bad for Evan Hillary Will Probably Run


Evan Bayh will get a national moment next week, making the Democratic intro to the hearings.

Single Digit Opposition


You read it on Bench Memos first: the only “single digit opposition” to Judge Roberts will be the Judiciary Committee vote: a party-line 10-8 vote.

What’s that you say? Senators Leahy, Kennedy, Schumer, Durbin, Feinstein et al. are coming into the confirmation hearings with “open minds”? They really “want to support” this nominee with “obviously stellar credentials”? But they just want to be assured he will “respect our rights and liberties”?

Uh huh. And I’m sure you believe Senator Kennedy’s nephew’s claim that President Bush and Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour are responsible for Hurricane Katrina.

The Abortion Questions


Ed is correct that the USA Today account of General Gonzales’s statements is garbled and self-contradictory. Ed has also done a beautiful job explicating the “Ginsburg standard” that governs this whole matter.

In short, some Senate Judiciary Committee members now say they will demand answers from Judge Roberts on two kinds of abortion questions: personal views and legal analysis.

“Personal view” questions: Judge Roberts’s personal views on abortion are utterly irrelevant to how he would rule on legal questions before the United States Supreme Court. Other nominees have declined to give their personal views, and Judge Roberts should too, lest anyone think such views would influence his future rulings. One thing we know about him is that he believes in applying the law impartially and fairly. Part of what it means to be a judicial conservative–as opposed to a liberal–is that judicial conservatives do not impose their own policy preferences from the bench.

Judge Roberts has already testified under oath before the Judiciary Committee two years ago that nothing in his personal views would prevent him from impartially and fairly adjudicating cases involving abortion. Senators can ask him that question again if they want, but we already know the answer.

“Legal analysis” questions: With respect to legal issues such as whether Roe v. Wade was correctly decided, Judge Roberts must refuse to answer questions from Committee members. As clearly stated by Sen. Joe Biden and then- Supreme Court nominee Ruth Bader Ginsburg in her 1993 Judiciary Committee hearings, to answer such questions on issues that will come before the Court in the future undermines the independence of the Court and would violate canons of judicial ethics. Judge Roberts accordingly must refuse, like all prior nominees, to answer such questions.

If any nominee were to answer such questions, as Justice Ginsburg put it, he would “act injudiciously” by giving “hints, forecasts, [or] previews” of how he might rule. This can give rise to expectations on the part of litigants and the public that can undermine both the fact and appearance of a justice’s being impartial once an actual case with real parties comes before the Court.

Cutting Through the Spin


When liberals say…

* civil rights, they mean racial quotas and forced busing.
* reproductive rights, they mean underage girls should get abortions without notifying their parents.
* equal pay for women, they mean government bureaucrats determining your pay.
* environmental protection and worker rights, they mean the government has unlimited power to regulate private property and business.
* church-state separation, they mean your town can’t display a Menorah or Christmas crèche during the holidays.

If confirmed, Roberts will benefit the country by not being a judicial activist:

* First and foremost, Roberts won’t allow bureaucrats to seize ordinary people’s private property.
* He won’t redefine traditional marriage.
* He won’t strike ‘under God’ from the Pledge of Allegiance.
* He won’t force the Boy Scouts to hire openly homosexual Scoutmasters.
* He won’t favor criminals’ rights over victims’ rights.
* He won’t protect simulated child pornography on the Internet.
* He won’t allow Congress to legislate in areas where the Constitution doesn’t grant it authority.
* He won’t ban the death penalty.
* He won’t permit the politicians to regulate what we say about them at election time.
* He won’t allow government to treat people differently because of their skin color.
* He won’t hamstring the military and intelligence services in the War on Terror.
* He won’t block school choice for kids trapped in failing schools.
* He won’t eliminate the right to gun ownership.

Attention C-SPAN Junkies


On Thursday morning from around 8:30 to 9:15 Eastern time, Ed Whelan will be on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal program discussing how the Roberts nomination bears on the issue of assisted suicide—suicide of human beings, not of the Democratic party. The launching point of the discussion will be the upcoming Supreme Court case of Gonzales v. Oregon, which presents the question whether the federal Controlled Substances Act preempts Oregon’s law purporting to allow physicians to prescribe and dispense drugs to an individual for the purpose of enabling that individual to commit suicide.

Roberts and the Ginsburg Standard


In trying to deny that it would be appropriate for Roberts to invoke the Ginsburg Standard–”no hints, no forecasts, no previews” about any issues that might come before the Court–the Left is now claiming that Ruth Bader Ginsburg was some sort of consensus candidate. It is not clear what logical bearing that claim has on a nominee’s ethical obligations to preserve both the fact and appearance of impartiality. But the claim is in any event wrong.

It is apparently true that Senator Hatch indicated to President Clinton that he believed that Ginsburg would face a much easier confirmation process than some of the other candidates Clinton was considering and that he himself would support her. But Hatch made clear that he believed that a president is entitled to considerable deference in selecting a Supreme Court justice and never suggested that Ginsburg was the sort of nominee that Hatch himself would select. In other words, Hatch was helping Clinton identify a nominee whom Clinton would like and who would be confirmed without substantial difficulty. Any Senate Democrat who adopted the same perspective with President Bush would have John Roberts at the top of his list.

As Hatch explained several weeks ago in an NRO essay (italics added):

President Clinton sought my input without my demanding it because he believed it would help him fulfill his constitutional responsibility for making judicial nominations. He did so not because Senate Republicans threatened filibusters or demanded some kind of veto power over his nominations. We did not try to impose a “consensus” standard or insist that a nominee meet some super-majority “widespread support” threshold.
Some have apparently cited a passage in a book by Hatch in which Hatch supposedly takes credit for calling Ginsburg to Clinton’s attention. I haven’t read the passage, and, in the tradition of politicians’ memoirs, it may well be that Hatch makes such a claim. But, especially in light of the Clinton administration’s very aggressive efforts to nominate female judges, one would have to be very naïve to believe that Ginsburg wasn’t on the Clinton White House’s radar screen from the outset. In any event, the point doesn’t affect the nature of the assistance that Hatch sought to provide.

As I have previously shown, Roberts is by any measure far more “mainstream” than Ginsburg was. The fact that Senate Democrats are far more hostile to him than Senate Republicans were to Ginsburg says much about Senate Democrats and nothing about Roberts. And it also says nothing about the appropriateness of Roberts’s invoking the Ginsburg Standard.

Voting Rights & Roberts


Edward Blum and Abby Thernstrom

VIA FACSIMILE (202) 224-9102

The Honorable Arlen Specter, Chairman

The Honorable Patrick Leahy, Ranking Minority Member

United States Senate

Committee on the Judiciary

224 Dirksen Senate OB

Washington, DC 20510

August 30, 2005

Dear Senators Specter and Leahy:

We are writing to you as coauthors of a forthcoming book on the Voting Rights Act to be published by the American Enterprise Institute Press and as co-directors of the Project on Fair Representation.

One of us, Abigail Thernstrom, is a political scientists and Vice-Chair of the United States Commission on Civil Rights. In 1987 she published Whose Votes Count? Affirmative Action and Minority Voting Rights (Harvard University Press) which won four prestigious awards, including the American Bar Association’s Certificate of Merit, one of the ABA’s two annual book prizes.

The other author, Edward Blum, is a Visiting Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute where he studies civil rights law and policy in the electoral process. Prior to this position, he served as Chairman of the Campaign for a Color-Blind America, Legal Defense and Education Foundation where he supervised the legal challenge to racially gerrymandered voting districts throughout the nation.

Our purpose in writing you is to draw your attention to a handful of op-eds and articles, written by us and enclosed, that examine the political and constitutional justification for sections 5 and 2 of the Voting Rights in the context of massive racial change over the last four decades. These issues will likely be discussed during the upcoming Judiciary Committee hearings on the nomination of Judge John Roberts to the Supreme Court.

As you will see in our Wall Street Journal op-ed of July 15, entitled “Do the Right Thing,” the emergency conditions that existed in the Deep South in 1965 to justify the imposition of the radical penalty of preclearance are long over. Federal approval of all election-related changes (from polling place relocations to new districting lines) was justified in an era of egregious violations of Fifteenth Amendment rights. But today, voter registration and election participation rates of blacks are nearly identical to those of whites. Furthermore, our preliminary state-by-state election analysis of those jurisdictions covered by section 5 suggests that white support of minority candidates is no different in Georgia or Alabama than it is in Massachusetts, Arkansas, and other jurisdictions that do not need permissions from remote federal authorities before using, say, new districting maps arrived at through democratic processes.

Preliminary analysis of election data in these section 5 jurisdictions also shows white crossover support for minority candidates is consistently high enough to elect minorities in statewide contests. Moreover, racial polarization rates are low enough to ensure minority success in both Democrat and Republican primaries. The fact that Georgia has elected an African American to the office of Attorney General and Texas has elected a Hispanic and an African American to statewide office speaks volumes to the changes in racial attitudes since the 1965 act was passed. There are over 9000 African American elected officials in the United Sates today. There would undoubtedly be an even larger number if black candidates were more willing to run in majority-white settings.

It is our belief that section 5 and the amended section 2 of the Voting Rights Act are grave constitutional infringements on basic federalism principles. Any concern Judge Roberts may have expressed about either of these provisions is justified in light of the Court’s recent jurisprudence. We are not alone in this opinion. In fact, during Senate floor debate on Feb. 27, 2004, Senator Kennedy spoke out against reauthorizing section 5 until a complete congressional inquiry has been completed, noting: “Critical analysis of issues surrounding preclearance of minority language provisions of the Voting Rights Act have not yet been fully examined and analyzed carefully to reflect the current status of laws, court decisions, enforcement actions, and society. The Supreme Court has made it clear in recent years that it will require Congress to establish a detailed record through hearings and legislative findings in order to ensure that provisions such as these survive constitutional scrutiny.”

We hope that you find our writings of value as you explore Judge Robert’s views on the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Voting Rights Act.

Sincerely yours,

Edward Blum Abigail Thernstrom

Visiting Fellow Co-Chair, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

American Enterprise Institute Lexington, MA

Washington, DC (781) 861-7634

Articles enclosed: “Do the Right Thing.” Wall Street Journal. 07-15-05

“After 40 Years, It’s Time to Move On.” Richmond Times Dispatch. 08-01-05.

“Roberts, Misjudged.” Los Angles Times. 08-11-05.

Color Inside the Lines.” Legal Affairs. Nov. 2003.


Sign up for free NRO e-mails today:

Subscribe to National Review