Roberts: Conservative White Man
The disclosure of more than 50,000 pages that cover Roberts' tenure as a lawyer in the White House counsel's office from 1982-86 are showing that he is not a supporter of women, minorities, or Democrats, but he loves corporations, white men, Republicans, oh and the Contras- remember those guys?
EQUAL RIGHTS
USSC nominee John G. Roberts consistently opposed strengthening women's rights during his years as a legal adviser in the Reagan White House, what he called "the purported gender gap" and, at one point, questioning "whether encouraging homemakers to become lawyers contributes to the common good." Roberts's comment about homemakers startled even Christians like Phyllis Schlafly, the president of the conservative Eagle Forum. In internal memos, Roberts urged President Reagan to refrain from embracing any form of the proposed Equal Rights Amendment pending in Congress; he concluded that some state initiatives to curb workplace discrimination against women relied on legal tools that were "highly objectionable"; and he said that directing employers to pay women equally to men for jobs of "comparable worth" -- was "staggeringly pernicious" and "anti-capitalist." Hey women, take your lesser pay, it's pro-capitalism, pro-corporations, pro-white man... just like Judge Roberts.
DIRTY POLITICS
Roberts will be facing many questions before the Senate, when his confirmation hearings begin the day after Labor Day. He also, the documents illustrate, played a bit role in the Reagan administration's efforts in Nicaragua to funnel assistance to CIA-supported "contras" who were trying overthrow the Marxist Sandinista government. Roberts gave his advice on proposed rules that would prohibit recipients of federal grants or contracts from using that money for lobbying or other forms of political advocacy. Democratic groups that received such money were complaining that the rules were intended to harm them. Roberts, in a February 1983 memo, agreed that the proposals were too broad, but worried more about the hit that government contractors would take. "It is possible to 'defund the left' without alienating [defense contractors] TRW and Boeing, but the proposals, if enacted, would do both," Roberts opined. Yeah, this jack-ass wouldn't be an activist judge when he reached the highest court in the land, would he? Nah.
DAMN BRAUDS & MINORITIES
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."
STEAL THE VOTE
Roberts also was directly involved in the Reagan administration's opposition to expanding the Voting Rights Act. The legislation would have required that discrimination in elections be deemed a violation of the act, even if it wasn't intentional. Roberts, in a memo, argued that the change could lead to a "quota system." "Just as we oppose quotas in employment and education, so too we oppose them in elections," he wrote. Again, I must be psychic, Roberts needs to be sitting on the Supreme Court for the 2006 elections and more importantly, the theft of the Presidency in 2008. As mentioned on my previous posts, Roberts was one of the lawyers for Bush v. Gore in 2000.
I don't think the Republicans are getting sloppy, letting us see their play book lately, I think they just don't care. They are the elite, in control of all houses of government. As Cheney would say: America 'go fuck yourself.' I'm gonna go open my 'Psychic Readings by Lisa' shop.
posted by Lisa @ 11:33 AM
4 comments
4 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Ooops. You should really try to look at other material other than the Washington Post, New York Times, San Francisco Chronical, or the LA Times. If you're going to limit yourself to media outlets that simply reflect your views, you might miss something. Here in conservative Texas, I periodically will watch "Free Speech TV". According to them, even the MSM is merely a pawn to corporations, so you can imagine their political perpective. Still, I try to keep an open mind...
Forgetting that the former head of the ACLU got a free pass to her appointment to SCOTUS without as much as a box of docs being scrutinized, lets look at Mr. Roberts' quote:
"Some might question whether encouraging homemakers to become lawyers contributes to the common good, but I suppose that is for the judges to decide."
I can take that two ways. Either Mr. Roberts didn't approve of homemakers becoming lawyers from a chauvinist point of view, or he was pointing out that we had too many lawyers already, a joke on his profession. We have no actual context for that quote as in a copy of the source document in the article, so no way of knowing what he meant. Words on paper don't always convey nuance, either. That doesn't stop the Post from publishing with their interpretation.
As to the whole deal about equal pay for women through the "comparable worth" doctrine was shot down some time ago as socialism. Do you want a judge determining what your job is worth? Lets see, how does a secretarial job compare to a truck driver? Oh, they're about the same...pay 'em the same salary. Next case...college professor and garbage collector. How about just equal pay for equal work...sounds like a good 'ol 14th Amendment 'equal protection under the law' deal for me.
I know you believe strongly in what you're saying, or you wouldn't bother blogging it. So, keep up the good work there, sister.
You never mention what publications 'you' read. I hesitate to ask. I have checked your blog and have yet to find any references to news agencies or periodicals. Are you just talking out an orifice, other than your mouth? Might I remind you, the Washington Post brought down 'one' of the crooked Republican presidents. They also kept their source secret for over two decades until the source revealed himself. It's obvious you know nothing about journalism and the ethics involved. As for being paid equal for comparable worth- you don't think that a woman with the same skills and experience should make the same as a man who is her equal? Maybe it's getting to hot in Texas or you need to pull your head out of that 'other' orifice. Thanks for blogging! ;)
Hehe,
Bathroom humor aside, I think you'll find that the Clinton administration rejected the 'comparable worth' idea pretty much as did Reagan, but don't take my word for it. Certainly, you're still not confusing that with 'equal pay for equal work'(which I'm for, btw), are you? Hope not. As to references to source materials and periodicals, I'm too busy dissecting yours...:-)
Besides that, you have to reach back 30 years to come up with a defense for what the Post is putting out now? ZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. In the absence of journalistic ethics, I'd settle for just a little intellectual honesty.
For myself, my unsophisticated backwards Texas upbringing doesn't allow for veiled references to private bodily functions, especially in the company of women, so pardon me for not responding in kind.
Y'all keep bloggin'!
Post a Comment
<< Home