Sizing Up Judge Roberts

While it isn't surprising that President Bush didn't nominate a woman for the Supreme Court [front page, July 20], it is extremely disappointing. The kinds of decisions that the Supreme Court rules on affect the female half of the population at least indirectly and sometimes have a direct, even exclusive impact.

Having just one woman on the court means that a woman's perspective -- historical, emotional and intellectual -- is worth only one-ninth of any court consideration.

MITCHELLE STEPHENSON

Edgewater

·

Appellate Judge John G. Roberts Jr., nominated by President Bush for the Supreme Court on Tuesday, represents a clear and present danger to the health and rights of women. His views on abortion decisions are clear. Although he has stated that Roe v. Wade is the "settled law of the land," this does not prevent him from changing the "law of the land" once he is on the Supreme Court. There is every indication that he would do exactly that, joined by what has been the slim minority opposed to women's rights.

This heated debate, with one side fighting to impose government control over family planning and the other side working to reserve family decisions for the woman, could easily take us back to the dark ages of back-alley abortions. The Constitution, which grants certain powers to the government and reserves all others to the people, does not grant to the government the right to control family planning.

I hope that the Senate will take a strong stand opposing Judge Roberts's nomination and take every opportunity to vote or filibuster to save women's rights.

DWIGHT S. BRASS

Edgerton, Wis.