« Global Warming - Putting Your Money Where Your Mouth Is | Main | Gaddafi Invites Bush, Rice To Visit »

Media Still Trying To Spin Roberts Into A Racist Bigot

WASHINGTON - As a lawyer in the Reagan White House, John Roberts scoffed at the notion of elevating Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor to chief justice as a way to close a political gender gap, calling it a "crass political consideration."

On another topic, Roberts, who was nominated as a justice by President Bush last month, advised the White House to strike language from a description of a housing bill that referred to the "fundamental right to be free from discrimination." He said that "there of course is no such right."

More than 38,000 pages of documents released this week by the National Archives offer new details that portray Roberts as embracing the conservative philosophy of the Reagan administration.

Some Democrats and liberal interest groups called anew on Friday for the release of more documents that might shed light on Roberts' views. His confirmation hearings are to begin Sept. 6.

"Many of the documents made it clear that as a junior official in the Reagan administration, he was part of an intense effort to impede progress on numerous key issues, such as progress on equal rights for women," said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., a member of the Judiciary Committee that will consider Roberts' nomination.

As you can see, liberal demagogues like Ted Kennedy are already jumping on this as "evidence" of Roberts' opposition to civil and gender rights advancements, but is it really? Consider, for a moment, what Roberts was talking about. He was responding to the idea that O'Connor should have been promoted to chief justice based on her gender. He said that this would be a "crass" political move, and he was right. It would have been a crass political move. After all, decisions like that should be based on job performance and ability, not gender.

As for Roberts' saying that there is no "fundamental right" to be free from discrimination, consider this from the same article:

Among the documents that have been released, in a June 14, 1983, memo, Roberts showed skepticism toward an expansive view of "fundamental rights" under the Constitution when commenting on a housing discrimination bill.

"Fundamental rights" is a legal concept that has been used to justify a broad array of civil rights under the Constitution, including a right to privacy.

Noting that the proposed administration bill would justify penalties by pointing to a "fundamental right to be free from discrimination," Roberts advised that the language be deleted.

"There is of course no such right; at the very least 'illegal' should modify 'discrimination,'" Roberts wrote. "More significantly, 'fundamental right' is a legal term of art triggering strict judicial scrutiny."

Clearly, putting such broad language about "fundamental rights" into legislation would be a mistake. The term "discrimination" can refer to more than the race, religion or gender based decision making we typically think of. An employer refusing to hire people who have been convicted of a felony could be said to be "discriminating" as could a financial lender choosing not to loan money to somebody with poor credit.

Certain types of discrimination are illegal, but not all types of discrimination. Roberts was making a legal point about that fact, and he was (as he usually is) 100% correct. He wanted the language in the bill narrowed down to refer to only "illegal" discrimination, and his opinion brought about that very change in the final draft of the legislation in question.

You know what's getting sad? The fact that long explanations like the one I just engaged in are necessary to correct the media and the political left's consistent attempts to skew facts found about Roberts in these released documents. NARAL already tried, through distortion, to suggest that Roberts supports violent anti-abortion protests. Just three days ago it came to light that anti-Roberts politicos were going so far as to examine his childhood for things they could use against him.

The fact that Roberts' political enemies have to stoop so low in order to smear him should tell even the most casual observer of his appointment process that he is eminently qualified for this position.

By Rob Port of Say Anything.


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Media Still Trying To Spin Roberts Into A Racist Bigot:

» Conservative Outpost linked with Daily Summary

Comments (5)

Hell, I discriminate every ... (Below threshold)

Hell, I discriminate every day when I choose what socks to wear. I also discriminate in who I will invite over to my house, who I will go out to eat with, and who I will have sex with. I know, I'm a horrible bigot.

We hear a lot about account... (Below threshold)
Lew Clark:

We hear a lot about accountability. The job of the Senate to hold the President accountable, the job of the press to hold the government accountable. But the reality is that this is a cover for obstructionism. A mindless opposition to the administration, without an alternative.
The big headline and the big news that should be out there is "Opposition Leaves No Stone Unturned in Effort to Smear Supreme Court Nominee". If we really had honest reporting, they would highlight just how low the opposition will go in their smear campaign.

I wish I could credit whoev... (Below threshold)
Andrew X:

I wish I could credit whoever in the b'sphere gave me this, but it is as cogent a one-line analysis of the Bush administration as I have ever seen, and I think of it virtually every day.

"The way to win at poker is NOT to 'get lucky hands'. The way to win at poker is to maneuver your opponent into betting as many chips as you can get him to bet.... on a losing hand."

Cindy Sheehan and (opposition to) Roberts.... losing hands numbers 3,277 and 3,278. And so it goes.

JSchuler is right. The wor... (Below threshold)

JSchuler is right. The word "judgemental" has become a bad word for some reason as well. I'm being "judgemental" when I decide that it would be a good idea to drive on the right side of the road, or that a certain person isn't the best fellow because he's got ten felony convictions and says he likes to eat his victim's toes.

This may be rude of me but ... (Below threshold)

This may be rude of me but I cannot wait for the day I am assured of hearing nothing more from the intemperate and bloviating piece of flesh that is Ted Kennedy. The State of Massachusetts just can't bring itself to do what's right for America and send this guy into retirement.






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy