Skip to comments.NYT: Roberts's Files From 80's Recall Big Debates of Era
Posted on 08/16/2005 5:29:23 AM PDT by OESY
Only an indistinct portrait of the young John G. Roberts Jr. emerged in thousands of pages released... from the Supreme Court nominee's years in the Reagan White House. But the documents do provide a vivid reminder of the debates that consumed official Washington in those days.
Some of the issues remain pertinent, while others are long forgotten. Anyone expecting the nearly 5,400 pages of documents, dating from late 1982 to mid-1986, to contain the key to the kind of Supreme Court justice that Judge Roberts would be is likely to be disappointed.
Whether abortion opponents should be permitted to bury thousands of fetuses in Arlington National Cemetery (no); whether a new appeals court should be created to ease the Supreme Court's workload (also no)....
Mr. Whelan's statement of unqualified support was distributed by Creative Response Concepts, a public relations firm here with a prominent role in the confirmation effort.
"The documents released today show that as a White House lawyer John Roberts was a forceful proponent of Reagan administration policies on abortion, school prayer, criminal justice and other hotly contested issues," the statement said, adding, "Those who try to paint Judge Roberts as a squishy moderate will not find any supporting evidence in these documents."
In the documents, there was nothing "squishy" about Judge Roberts's response to an employment discrimination theory known as "comparable worth" then being put forward by women's rights groups.
The theory started from the premise that antidiscrimination policies that addressed solely "equal pay for equal work" failed to take into account the fact that heavily female occupations generally paid less than male-dominated job categories....
Mr. Roberts wrote... to Mr. Fielding: "Their slogan may as well be 'From each according to his ability, to each according to her gender.'" The federal appeals court [upheld Roberts]....
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
So, what's their point?
It seems to me like these investigations into the past comments and writings of Judge Roberts will find nothing more than what you'd expect from a man whose eye has always been on the prize - a Supreme Court sinecure.
Which is to say: Roberts has never uttered a public syllable that could be used to hang him, never written a controversial opinion.
I fear he's another blank slate like the (still blank) Sandra Day O'Connor.
Oh puh_leeez. Roberts comes across as more conservative than Reagan.
Where did he come down on that whole, "tastes great/less filling" debate from the 80's?
And what would you base that most remarkable comment on?
Reagan had what we'd call a "public record" of statements made on his own behalf, representing his own personal views and philosophy.
In marked contrast to this Roberts guy.
Sure, but public remarks are guarded. Tons of Roberts personal notes have been being released. Have you read any of them. Roberts calls Senator Snowe a Marxist. He defends school prayer and calls many of the Supreme Courts rulings on the subject as indefensible. He makes many statements against abortion. None of his writings indicate anything other than a staunch conservative. Why do you think Roberts spent most of his career working for people like Reagan, GHW Bush, Rehnquist, and GW Bush, because he is a liberal in disguise???
"Where did he come down on that whole, "tastes great/less filling" debate from the 80's?"
I think he voted that both groups could argue their position of tastes great/less filling. The Federal Appeals court agreed with the decision.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.