DEADLINES:
IMMEDIATE: ROBERT'S NOMINATION
TO US SUPREME COURT
9/30: VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT (VAWA)
INTERNATIONAL MARRIAGE BROKER
REGULATION ACT (IMBRA)

IMMEDIATE 

Our new law clerk, Gening Liao, attended part of Judge John Roberts’ confirmation hearings last week on behalf of napawf.  Below is an article that she wrote about her observations of the hearing.

The Senate Judiciary Committee will likely vote on Judge Roberts’ nomination this week, and the full Senate will likely vote next week.  It is not too late.  Please call your Senator and urge him or her to vote “NO” on Judge John Roberts! Protect APA women’s rights! 

For more information about the Supreme Court and APA women, or to see NAPAWF’s opposition statement on Judge Roberts, please visit our website at www.napawf.org. 

A Limited Profile of John Roberts
By Gening Liao
NAPAWF Law Clerk
September 2005

Looking to the future at an image of the United States with John G. Roberts as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, I can’t help but feel violated by the fact that my already limited rights will probably just continue to dwindle.  We already have a Supreme Court-elected president who definitely does not represent me.  But what more can our nation handle before it self-destructs?

Judge Roberts would most likely lead the nation in narrowing the right of privacy under the Constitution even further than the Rehnquist Court had done (if that’s even possible), narrowing the scope of the Voting Rights Act, and interpreting civil rights statutes in an even more restrictive manner.

On Wednesday, September 14, 2005, I attended the third day of Judge John Roberts’s Chief Justice Confirmation Hearings, and witnessed first-hand Judge Roberts’s swift dodging of practically all questions requiring a substantive answer, and that will have an impact on APA women.  When I entered the Senate room where the hearing was taking place, I caught the end of the questioning from Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA), who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee.  He was followed by Senator Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT), then Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), and finally Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA).  Judge Roberts dodged questions that Senators Specter, Leahy, and Kennedy asked concerning his views and past rulings on issues involving the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Voting Rights Act, abortion, the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution, and right of privacy under the Constitution.  With most of these questions, Judge Roberts merely responded that he could not comment because there was a possibility that a similar issue could come before the Court.

Senator Hatch was the only Senator whom Judge Roberts answered all the questions.  The Senator first acknowledged concerns that many advocates had regarding Judge Roberts’s statements on women’s rights, the Voting Rights Act, and other civil rights issues during the first two days of hearings.  He then proceeded to ask a series of leading questions, to assure that, contrary to the concerns of many Democrats and the rest of the American public, he knew that what Judge Roberts really meant was that he’s an advocate of women’s rights, civil rights, and agrees with the importance of the Voting Rights Act.  In one such leading question or statement, Senator Hatch stated, “And, in fact, you're a strong supporter of women's rights and gender equality,” with which Judge Roberts could answer in only one way, which was a simple, “Yes, Sir.” 

Judge Roberts’s previous legal writings, however, present a completely alternate viewpoint.  In a February 20, 1984 memo, in response to a request by three female Republican lawmakers to recognize a federal district court decision in Washington for equal pay, Judge Roberts called this a “radical distributive concept” and reasoned that the pay gap was legitimated by the seniority of male workers and the fact that women leave the work force for extended periods.^[1]  These do not sound like the words of someone who is “a strong supporter of women’s rights and gender equality.”

And in response to questions about the right of privacy under the Constitution, Judge Roberts continuously avoided giving a direct answer by affirming his respect for precedent.  But what guarantee does that give us?  Hardly any!  Yes, judges must technically follow precedent, but they also have the ability to limit earlier caselaw to such a degree that the original right is hardly recognized anymore.  For instance, when Roe v. Wade first came out giving women the right to choose, it was shadowed by the court-concocted three-trimester system, but generally still legalized a woman’s right to an abortion.

Then under the Rehnquist Court in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, the court subtly limited a woman’s right to choose under Roe by allowing states to implement policies that discourage women from having abortions so long as the policies are not “unduly burdensome.”  Such policies included a mandatory 24-hour waiting period after receiving informational pamphlets or watching a video, notification requirements and others, many of which the Supreme Court upheld as not being unduly burdensome, and therefore constitutional.  With the possible confirmation of Judge Roberts and the nomination of another (most likely) right wing and conservative Supreme Court Justice, who knows what could happen to the right of privacy in the abortion context.

At Judge Roberts’s confirmation hearings, he refused to answer questions about abortion, privacy, civil rights, and other issues of importance to APA women, providing a limited glimpse into his values and judicial philosophy.  In addition, the federal government’s refusal to disclose Judge Roberts’s writings from when he worked for the Reagan and Bush Administrations implies that there is something to hide.  Based on what we do know from Judge Roberts’s record, however, his presence on the Supreme Court would likely have a detrimental effect on APA women. 

^[1] Amy Goldstein, Jo Becker, Washington Post “Memos reveal Roberts' conservative views
5,393 government documents released on his earlier years” August 16, 2005, A-4.

SEPTEMBER 30, 2005 DEADLINE

VAWA APPROVED BY SENATE COMMITTEE

On September 8, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved a comprehensive bill (S. 1197) to reauthorize and expand the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).  VAWA was first enacted in 1994 (P.L. 103-322), was reauthorized in 2000 (P.L. 106-386) and is set to expire on September 30, 2005.  

Immigrant women’s needs are addressed by the bill’s grant of T visas to trafficking victims who cooperate with law enforcement.  The bill also extends the issuance of U visas to victims of certain crimes who cooperate with law enforcement in the investigation and prosecution of the crime, and T visas to four years, with further extensions determined on a year-by-year basis. 

The bill would also clarify the definition of “VAWA petitioners” to include those who have self-petitioned for permanent residency in the U.S. as the battered spouses and children of U.S. citizens and permanent residents and allow approved self petitioners as well as T visa recipients to obtain work permits.  Applicants would be allowed to remain in the U.S. without detention while the application is being considered.  S. 1197 would also allow individuals on K visas (fiancée visas) to stay in the U.S. if they did not marry within 90 days as a result of domestic violence or extreme cruelty.  

What You Can Do: Ensure that VAWA is reauthorized quickly before it expires on September 30th.  Contact your Senator and urge him or her to protect survivors of domestic violence by passing VAWA Reauthorization without delay.  To find your senator’s information see www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm. 

IMBRA TO PROCEED TO JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

The International Marriage Broker Regulation Act (IMBRA)(S. 1618), proposed on September 7, 2005 by Senators Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Sam Brownback (R-KS), will require marriage brokerage companies to provide foreign women with personal and criminal background information on their American matches.  Asian women make up a large percentage of women using marriage brokerage services with the majority coming from Thailand and the Philippines.  

IMBRA addresses the power imbalance present in many brokered marriages by giving women information on domestic violence laws and their rights as spouses. 

On September 8, 2005 IMBRA was attached to the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).  On Thursday, September 9, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a “mark up” on VAWA (with IMBRA included), and voted the whole bill out of committee which means the bill will go to the full Senate for a final vote. 

What You Can Do: Call or fax the following key members of House and Senate Judiciary, who are also lead sponsors of VAWA, to thank them for their work to address violence against women and to applaud their efforts to provide protection to foreign brides: Representatives Sensenbrenner (WI) and Conyers (MI), and Senators Hatch (UT), Specter (PA), and Biden (DE).  To find your Member’s contact information, please visit www.house.gov or www.senate.gov.