Posted on 09/15/2005 5:04:54 AM PDT by OXENinFLA
Roberts: Day Four Set to Begin
On Thursday, the members of the Senate Judiciary Cmte. continue with a third round of questioning. Then six different panels of out- side witnesses deliver their views on the professional and personal suitability of John Roberts to be appointed Chief Justice of the United States. This testimony will take the entire day.
LIVE LINKS
Nomination of John G. Roberts [LIVE thread 9-12]
Nomination of John G. Roberts [LIVE Thread 9-13]~Day Two
Nomination of John G. Roberts [LIVE Thread 9-14]~Day Three
I don't know .. yet
He says he quit because of the Reagan policies
I checking into it .. but I found this
http://www.fed-soc.org/Publications/barwatchbulletin/barwatchAug0903.htm
FIREWORKS ON RACIAL PREFERENCES
Today the Litigation Section sponsored a roundtable called "The Aftermath: Affirmative Action and the US Supreme Court." The participants were: Ward Connerly of California Prop 209 fame, former US Court of Appeals Judge Nathaniel Jones, Eva Patterson of the Equal Justice Society, Ted Shaw of
the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, and US Civil Rights Commission Member Abby Thernstrom. It was extremely explosive. As best as we could scribble it down, here is some of the blow-by-blow:
Question from Moderator--What is most significant about the Michigan cases?
--Ted Shaw. "These cases are part of a broader attack." The Supreme Court's decision "turns that back," and it was "rendered by a conservative court."
--Ward Connerly. "The decision legalizes racial discrimination." The decision "does not resolve the long dispute, it only suspends the day of reckoning." He then discussed ballot initiatives on preferences.
--Eva Patterson. She believes that there is "common ground" that "discrimination still exists." We "may not intend to discriminate" but it "is alive and well."
--Lino Graglia. The decision is "official approval of racial discrimination" and is an "enormous defeat" for Brown v. Board and the 1964 Civil Rights Act. "The official policy is that blacks cannot be expected to
compete with whites." Preferences "keep the race drums booming" and "conceals rather than deals with under-performance by blacks." Much hissing followed. No applause.
--Judge Jones. "Race has a long history in shaping our institutions." That history is why blacks underperform and why remedies are still needed. Much applause from the audience.
--Abby Thernstrom. Discussed the racial gap in academic performance and the need to address it through K-12 education. "Get involved in the fight for vouchers." "Fight for charter schools." "Do not get sucked into the notion that testing is discriminatory. That is shooting the messenger." Dead
silence.
Question by Eva Patterson to Lino Graglia whether he believes in the Bell Curve. Graglia asks whether preferences are "the road to racial harmony" and professes not to have enough background to answer her question. Patterson describes the "subtext" of Graglia's remarks as "maybe genetics, I don't know." Ted Shaw jumps in and says that with Graglia's remarks "rumors of inferiority float in the air."
Moderator asks about the presence of common ground. Ted Shaw states that "there are people who in good faith differ." But "colorblindness is not my goal" and he said he had "no common ground with Graglia."
Ward Connerly: the statistics may incite folks, but there is an academic gap. Referring back to Graglia, Connerly said he wished people would not use the word "unqualified" when speaking of black applicants. Qualification "is not the issue," but, rather, "whether we should use the contentious
factor of race." We need to look at better ways of defining academic merit."
Judge Jones expressed trouble with ballot initiatives. With the Court's decision "the issue is removed from political debate and controversy." He also accused conservatives of hypocrisy--there is much talk about academic disparity now, but nobody was there to talk about that when he and other lawyers at NAACP were challenging school segregation.
Abigail Thernstrom indicated that she "favors integrated schools" but "finds it offensive that there needs to be some white faces for there to be a quality education." She has seen a number (though too few) innner city schools that are good but lack white students. Jones asks her if she is for separate but equal. Ted Shaw agrees with Thernstrom's point.
Ted Shaw, speaking to Ward Connerly: "I say to you, sir, that while I wish you no harm, you are doing a great deal of harm." Called Connerly's colorblindness message "simple-minded." Connerly responds: "believing that all people get equal treatment under the law is not simple-minded."
Lino Graglia created a huge stir in the room when he said that, in some respects, blacks were better of 40 or 50 years ago, referring to the current 70 percent illegitimacy rate. Yelling and hissing from the
audience, followed by a comment from Judge Jones that he "feels badly for people who had to study under Graglia." Thernstrom condemned the bashing that people always seem to go out of their way to do on panels, referring specifically to the way in which Justice Thomas and his views are characterized
Schedule according to c-span
Sept 22: vote taken in committee
Sept 26: vote taken on the floor
Oct 3: new session of SCOTUS begins.
http://www.naacpldf.org/content.aspx?article=47
(snip)
Shaw graduated from Wesleyan University with honors and from the Columbia University School of Law, where he was a Charles Evans Hughes Fellow. Upon graduation, Shaw worked as a trial attorney in the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice from 1979 until 1982 in Washington, D.C. He litigated civil rights cases throughout the country at the trial and appellate levels, and in the U.S. Supreme Court. Shaw resigned from the Justice Department in protest of the Reagan Administration's civil rights policies.
Speaking of dinosaurs, Thomas Sowell points out that affirmative action has been going on in India since the days of the British. It was only supposed to be a temporary "fix."
However, It's gotten to the point that Indians who are not "Untouchable" will get themselves adopted by "Untouchables" so that they can get into one of the seats set aside for "Untouchables" in (medical?) schools.
Was it Alberto Gonzales that the dems delayed to deny him the honor of being a seated Cabinet member at the State of the Union? Will they try it with Roberts?
They have to stop those crooks in Chicago from stealing the elections, I know Illinois is not a liberal state, just Chicago.
Let em try! They just look more stupid then they already do....In the end Roberts WILL get the appointment.
LOL. Just noticed your tagline.
OTOH I'm not sure if technically they can convene without a SCJ...DOes anyone remember US Governmentor the rules.
I'm bad! (again)
The senior justice becomes a sort of temporary CJ.
no one in the states listens to Durbin
No one south of I80 listens to Durbin
thanks
OFF TOPIC, but LOOK AT THIS and *smile*
To: Howlin; Miss Marple; Mo1; onyx
"I really should have called for the military," Blanco said, while chatting with her press secretary in between TV interviews. "I really should have started that in the first call."
Unbeknownst to Blanco, her bombshell acknowledgment was recorded on a network satellite feed, and by Tuesday the clip was getting wide exposure in Louisiana news broadcasts.
32 posted on 09/15/2005 12:41:01 PM CDT by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
GRAHAM: Yes, Mr. Chairman, just for a couple of minutes. I'm trying to compile questions from the past where the answers were very similar to the answers of Judge Roberts about, I can't comment, I can't give you -- I can't answer your question because it may compromise my integrity to judge in the future. And I would ask permission of the committee to get a chance to organize this because there are so many volumes.
And what I would like to be able to demonstrate to the committee is that the pattern that he has displayed in terms of saying, I can't give you an answer because it may disqualify me is not unique to the Senate and very similar to past nominations. And we've got some examples of that.
But if I may, and I know we've been here and Lord knows this guy's been through the wringer, I just want to comment a little bit an unhealthy area I think we find ourselves in in the last hour.
Most of us are lawyers, and I would hate to be judged by the people I've represented in the past totally. I've represented some people that are not very nice.
(LAUGHTER)
But I gave them my all. I've represented people on Air Force bases that were so unpopular, Judge Roberts, that no one would eat with me, because it was my job as the area defense counsel to represent that person. Your heart -- nobody can question your intellect, because it would be a question of their intellect to question yours...
(LAUGHTER)
... so we're down to the heart. And is it all coming down to that? Well, there are all kind of hearts. There are bleeding hearts and there are hard hearts. And if I wanted to judge Justice Ginsburg on her heart, I might take a hard-hearted view of her and say she's a bleeding heart. She represents the ACLU. She wants the age of consent to be 12. She believes there's a constitutional right to prostitution. What kind of heart is that?
Well, she has a different value system than I do. But that doesn't mean she doesn't have a good heart. And I want this committee to understand that if we go down this road of putting people's hearts in play, and the only way you can have a good heart is, Adopt my value system, we're doing a great disservice to the judiciary.
Thank you.
One race baiter and two gender baiters coming
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.