The over-the-top television ad attacking Judge John G. Roberts Jr., put out by a leading abortion-rights group, was a glaring example of how not to conduct the debate over his nomination to the Supreme Court.
Supporters and detractors alike should take the ad as a lesson in what not to do as Roberts’ September confirmation hearing approaches and the national focus on him tightens.
Special-interest groups need to stand down – not from doing their due diligence, but from mindless hysteria.
NARAL, the abortion-rights group, Thursday night pulled the ad that tried to link Roberts to violent anti-abortion activists, perhaps after getting pressure from some Senate Democrats. (Conservatives had called for its cancellation all week.)
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., called the ad “basically irrelevant” and told The Associated Press he wished both sides would just quiet down.
The NARAL ad focused on a 1991 Supreme Court brief that Roberts helped write on behalf of the first Bush administration, arguing that the federal government could not use a Reconstruction-era civil-rights statute to rein in abortion-clinic protesters. The Supreme Court eventually agreed.
But the ad, complete with footage from a 1998 abortion-clinic bombing, concluded that Roberts’ “ideology leads him to excuse violence against other Americans.”
Factcheck.org, a project run by the Annenberg Public Policy Center group, called the ad false and said the images were “especially misleading.”
NARAL did itself incalculable harm by defending the ad most of the week.
Unfortunately, the controversy also has detracted from the important discussion of Roberts’ stance on abortion and other important issues.
Some Roberts supporters have indulged in loose speculation about what he’d do as a high-court justice, like going so far as to say he wouldn’t change abortion law. That, of course, immediately raises the question: If he’s not a threat to abortion rights, why do some groups so badly want him to become a justice?
Supporters and opponents should drop the rhetoric but continue digging for facts that would be helpful to the Senate, which must decide whether to confirm his nomination to the Supreme Court. There’s a role here for everyone, but it doesn’t involve mindless advocacy or nasty, unsubstantiated attacks.
