We have the rules because police have historically violated civil rights. We wouldn't need the constitution to protect our freedoms if we had a government we always agreed with and we would let the legislature make whatever laws they wanted and we would follow them.

[As civil rights campaigner branded the plan] draconian ... The power to allow the police to detain suspects without charge for up to three months is necessary and reflects the experience of expert investigators in the field.

He put forth an anti-Rosa Parks judge. ... Just maybe, we need a White House conference on civil rights.

[(AP) CBC Wants Roberts Probed on Civil Rights: A Roberts who would limit the Supreme Court's reach would please the 10 Republicans on the committee, who used their opening statements Monday to complain about the Supreme Court's reach into areas they felt were more properly left to local, state and national legislators.] Perhaps the Supreme Court's most notorious exercise of raw political power came in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, two 1973 cases based on false statements which invented a constitutional right to abortion, ... The issue had been handled by the people through their elected representatives prior to that time.

John Roberts consistently has taken the most narrow, restrictive views of civil rights and women's rights.

There are those who say to you -- we are rushing this issue of civil rights. I say we are 172 years late.