Last year, a 12-year-old girl was arrested for eating french fries while waiting for a train.

This happened not in Saudi Arabia, not in Cuba, but in America, in Washington D.C., where the city has an ordinance prohibiting eating in the Metro.

The girl was handcuffed, fingerprinted and detained. Every time I see a story like this, I wonder how many rapists and murderers get early parole while our nation’s fast-food lovers do hard time on a Whopper rap.

In the civil suit that followed, the judge decided the cops were in the right, and the arrest was not an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment.

According to the judge, the girl was fair game because her arrest would not have been seen as unreasonable when the Amendment was framed; that is, more than 200 years ago, when women were property and America’s president held slaves. Many of us have adopted a more progressive view of the law over the course of the past two centuries; apparently the judge has not.

That judge was John Roberts, whom President Bush has appointed to the highest court in the land.

Next week, the Senate begins confirmation hearings on Roberts. If confirmed, he will fill the seat vacated by retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who was an important moderate and swing vote on the Court for a quarter-century.

Roberts’ appointment will tilt the balance of the Court to the right, and may pave the way for the reversal of many freedoms and protections Americans take for granted.

The nonpartisan advocacy group People For the American Way has established a Web site detailing Roberts’ career (www.savethecourt.org).

A brief sampling: while working in the Solicitor General’s office under the first President Bush, Roberts signed a memo that argued Roe V. Wade should be overturned and abortion made illegal.

He has consistently fought against workplace protections for minorities and women, saying of the latter, “Some might question whether encouraging homemakers to become lawyers contributes to the common good, but I suppose that is for the judges to decide.” Roberts favors lowering the wall of separation between church and state, and resisted the Reagan administration’s efforts to enact fair housing legislation. He has also railed against what he calls “the so-called right to privacy.”

In short, Roberts stands outside the bounds of what mainstream Americans take to be the legal norms of our country.

It is true that Roberts has ideological supporters. Even those who agree with Roberts’ judicial philosophy, however, may be discomforted by his unethical practices.

The Washington Post reported earlier this month that Roberts ruled in favor of the Bush administration on an important terror case at the same time he was interviewing for a job with … the Bush administration.

As the judicial code of conduct prohibits even the appearance of impropriety, Roberts should have excused himself from the case, as presiding over a trial involving your potential boss constitutes one big conflict of interest.

And that aforementioned case allowed the use of military tribunals against suspected terrorists detained at Guantanamo Bay, tribunals that have recently been alleged to be rigged. The Wall Street Journal reported on Aug. 1 that two prosecutors – the government’s lawyers, not the terrorists – quit in protest because the tribunals were held, in the words of one, in “an environment of secrecy, deceit and dishonesty.” Roberts helped pave the way for Gitmo’s show trials; will he turn the Supreme Court into a kangaroo court?

This is bigger than one man; this is about the very legal fabric of our nation.

The promise of America resides in the rule of law. It is the law that enables environmentalists to compel a polluting corporation to clean up its act; the law that ensures all Americans can choose to live wherever they can afford to without fear of discrimination; the law that protects our privacy and dignity at home, in the workplace and in the doctor’s office.

It is a promise worth fighting for, and worth denying Roberts a seat on the court.

Columns reflect the opinion of the author and not necessarily that of the Northern Star staff.