Friday, August 19, 2005

Vote "No!" on Roberts

The Washington Post reports on Supreme Court nominee John Roberts' tenure as Reagan's legal advisor:

Covering a period from 1982 to 1986 -- during his tenure as associate counsel to President Reagan -- the memos, letters and other writings show that Roberts endorsed a speech attacking "four decades of misguided" Supreme Court decisions on the role of religion in public life, urged the president to hold off saying AIDS could not be transmitted through casual contact until more research was done, and argued that promotions and firings in the workplace should be based entirely on merit, not affirmative action programs.

In October 1983, Roberts said that he favored creation of a national identity card to prove American citizenship, even though the White House counsel's office was officially opposed to the idea. He wrote that such measures were needed in response to the "real threat to our social fabric posed by uncontrolled immigration."


"It is possible to 'defund the left' without alienating [defense contractors] TRW and Boeing, but the proposals, if enacted, would do both," Roberts opined.

I can't think of anything the man can say at his Senate confirmation hearing that will convince me that he's in sync with the views of the average American citizen. Not that the views of the average American citizen are particularly enlightened, mind you, but Roberts doesn't even rise to that level. The Senate should reject Roberts' bid to join the Supreme Court.

All this talk of Roberts being a shoo-in is BS. He's a Biblical authoritarian, and he is not qualified to dispense justice to Americans. Roberts is another hard-right partisan like Scalia and Thomas. If you don't believe me, read the whole article and see for yourself.


Robin Zebrowski said...

I saw some of those documents where Roberts was against paying women equal wages for work equal to what men do.

He sounds so swell.

Dale Carrico said...

Quite apart from how much I fear and hate what this goon squad seems to stand for, I frankly just can't wrap my mind around the fact that so many of the people whooping it up enthusiastically in this neocon/theocon ascendancy were complaining about big gu'ment, and don't tread on me, and liberty or die, and all the rest just a few years ago. I mean, is it really just the case that what they really meant all along was gimme gimme gimme gimme! It's true that I often joked with friends that that's what their weird premodern-seeming "principles" finally amounted to, but actually I never really believed it could truly be quite as awful as that.

Nevin ":-)" said...

After two days of hearings, any change in your opinion?

I've had some friends mention that he is a better replacement for Rehnquist than for O'Conner, because he won't be moving the court any further to the Right.

Of course, another major concern is the next nominee Bush will put forward...

Nevin ":-)" said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Doctor Logic said...

I still think that all Democrats should vote No. See Armando's post at DailyKos. He hasn't said anything of consequence at his hearing. The only evidence we have on him is from his writings, and those clearly show him to be a bad egg.

I'm not sure that his vote should be filibustered, but he shouldn't get any votes from people who care about privacy, fairness or individual freedom.