WP: Roberts a Force In Reagan Era

Papers Show Conservative Advocacy

Wednesday, July 27, 2005; A01

Newly released documents show that John G. Roberts Jr. was a significant backstage player in the legal policy debates of the early Reagan administration, confidently debating older Justice Department officials and supplying them with arguments and information that they used to wage a bureaucratic struggle for the president's agenda.

Roberts presented a defense of bills in Congress that would have stripped the Supreme Court of jurisdiction over abortion, busing and school prayer cases; he argued for a narrow interpretation of Title IX, the landmark law that bars sex discrimination in intercollegiate athletic programs; and he even counseled his boss on how to tell the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s widow that the administration was cutting off federal funding for the Atlanta center that bears his name.

The documents are from Roberts's 1981-1982 tenure as a special assistant to Attorney General William French Smith. Like previously reported memos from Roberts's stint in President Ronald Reagan's White House in the mid-1980s, the documents made available from the National Archives yesterday show a man in his mid-twenties deeply engaged in the conservative restructuring of government that the new president had promised.

To a greater extent than the White House documents previously released, the more than 15,000 pages of Justice Department memos show Roberts speaking at times in his own voice. In memos to the attorney general or senior officials of the Justice Department, Roberts argued for restrictions on the rights of prisoners to litigate their grievances; depicted as "judicial activism" a lower court's order requiring a sign-language interpreter for a hearing-impaired public school student who had already been given a hearing aid and tutors; and argued for wider latitude for prosecutors and police to question suspects out of the presence of their attorneys.

(snip)

…Roberts underlined the name of one of the Republican appointees Olson listed, Justice Harry A. Blackmun, the author of Roe v. Wade , and drew an arrow connecting it to the word "abortion."

more…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/26/AR2005072602070.html

:scared:

eom

So he ruled against allowing a deaf student to have a sign language interpreter for educational purposes. Unacceptable! Many deaf people require use of interpreters for their classes as hearing aids and lipreading do not suffice.

All they have to do is question him about his record and then get to the microphones.

Anyone who is more conservative than Ted Olson should not be a member of the SCOTUS. We must do whatever it takes to defeat this nomination in the senate.

this is why Bu$hCo is so anxious to get him on the SC by Oct. They are going to need his vote when they start contesting all the indictments.

this scum bag will skate through the SENATE and then grovel at the feet of his NEOCON masters like President Cheney.

that is a warning to reject this Party hack. It is pitiful that judicial independence scares the GOP--no doubt because they KNOW that what they are doing is not only immoral but also illegal.

Intellectually sadistic. The worst kind of judge possible. All cerebral, no heart.

Why lie about the Federalist Society, when it's so easy for others to show you were on the steering committee?

It doesn't make his testimony to come more believeable. And it certainly shows a contempt for other people and the truth and law.

I don't think Roberts has a judicial temperament.

it figures.

Holy shit--this guy is as rightwing as they get. There hasn't been a judge this hostile to the constitution and civil rights in the past 50 years.


<snip>
Roberts presented a defense of bills in Congress that would have stripped the Supreme Court of jurisdiction over abortion, busing and school prayer cases; he argued for a narrow interpretation of Title IX, the landmark law that bars sex discrimination in intercollegiate athletic programs; and he even counseled his boss on how to tell the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s widow that the administration was cutting off federal funding for the Atlanta center that bears his name.
<snip>

<snip>In one instance, he wrote a memo to the attorney general urging Smith to disregard the recommendation of William Bradford Reynolds, the head of the agency's civil rights division, that the administration should intervene on behalf of female inmates in a sex discrimination case involving job training for prisoners.

"I recommend that you do not approve intervention in this case," Roberts wrote. He said that such a step would be inconsistent with the administration's belief in judicial restraint and that, if equal treatment for male and female prisoners was required, "the end result in this time of state prison budgets may be no programs for anyone." Besides, he said, private plaintiffs were already bringing suit.
<snip>

<snip>Much of Roberts's time at the Justice Department was taken up by the debate over GOP-sponsored bills in Congress that would have stripped the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction over abortion, busing and school prayer cases. He wrote repeatedly in opposition to the view, advanced by then-Assistant Attorney General Theodore B. Olson, that the bills were unconstitutional. He scrawled "NO!" in the margins of an April 12, 1982, note Olson sent to Smith. In the memo, Olson observed that opposing the bills would "be perceived as a courageous and highly principled position, especially in the press."

Roberts drew a bracket around the paragraph, underlined the words "especially in the press," and wrote in the margin: "Real courage would be to read the Constitution as it should be read and not kowtow to the Tribes, Lewises and Brinks!"
<snip>

<snip>
Roberts added skeptical margin notes again when Olson wrote that the bills were unnecessary because the court now had more Republican-appointed members than it had in the 1960s, and was moving to the right as a result.

Roberts underlined the name of one of the Republican appointees Olson listed, Justice Harry A. Blackmun, the author of Roe v. Wade , and drew an arrow connecting it to the word "abortion."
<snip>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/26/AR2005072602070.html

WHAT is in the paper's that they're trying to hide?

So Judge Frenchfry's a white supremacist who thinks the Supreme Court ought not to be allowed on questions of reproductive rights, school desegregation, or state-sponsored religion. AND he's all in favor of sexual discrimination.

Oh yeah, and he thinks it's ducky to lie to widows...

No matter how hard the Extreme BushCo Republicans catapult the propaganda on this dude, in the end he will be pushing up no blossoms from the hidden turd of his EXTREME views.

...these wingnut opinions, the lie about the Federalist society, the papers the GOP is trying to hide, the nutcase orgnization his wife runs...

Wonder how much more will come out by the time Congress comes back in session...

By the way, somebody should ask some of these right wing loonies like Santorum who have announced that women shouldn't work outside the home how come its all right for Mrs. Roberts to neglect her kids and run "Fetus Don't Fail Me" or whatever her klavern is called...

He argued in a landmark SC case (and won) that no institution receiving ANY federal funds (even if they did not go toward abortion svcs or counseling) could even DISCUSS abortion or even give a REFERRAL somewhere else for abortion information.

Look how he contradicted himself with this same question regarding non-discrimination under Title IX for college women:

From the original linked article:

"Previously, the Carter administration had sided with the Education Department, arguing that Title IX gave the federal government wide authority over all programs at a federally funded university, whether the specific program received federal money or not.

But Roberts agreed with Reynolds's decision for the civil rights division not to appeal a contrary ruling by a district judge, arguing that "under Title IX, federal investigators cannot rummage willy-nilly through institutions, but can go only as far as the federal funds can go."


That is a clear departure and in total opposition to what he argued for in front of the Supreme Court - and won.
Women cannot receive ANY medical information about abortion or even a simple REFERRAL as to where to obtain information about abortion - directly because of Roberts' case.

He holds contradictory legal opinions on a common subject - discriminatory civil rights treatment of women under federal law.

Roberts can interpret (and make, as he was successful) law to fit his ideology of what women's civil rights should be.

This man can bend himself both ways to deny a woman her rights.

I'm glad someone decided to find out who this
guy really is.

just kidding, lurkers.

he's in, and it would take a miracle to stop him. thanks, sandra, for bailing before the impeachment.

THIS is the BEST judge in the country? is that NOT the standard for elevation to the supreme court?

Sorry, Harry Reid, but he's not OK anymore.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/26/AR2005072602070.html?referrer=email

Newly released documents show that John G. Roberts Jr. was a significant backstage player in the legal policy debates of the early Reagan administration, confidently debating older Justice Department officials and supplying them with arguments and information that they used to wage a bureaucratic struggle for the president's agenda.

Roberts presented a defense of bills in Congress that would have stripped the Supreme Court of jurisdiction over abortion, busing and school prayer cases; he argued for a narrow interpretation of Title IX, the landmark law that bars sex discrimination in intercollegiate athletic programs; and he even counseled his boss on how to tell the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s widow that the administration was cutting off federal funding for the Atlanta center that bears his name.




The documents are from Roberts's 1981-1982 tenure as a special assistant to Attorney General William French Smith. Like previously reported memos from Roberts's stint in President Ronald Reagan's White House in the mid-1980s, the documents made available from the National Archives yesterday show a man in his mid-twenties deeply engaged in the conservative restructuring of government that the new president had promised.

To a greater extent than the White House documents previously released, the more than 15,000 pages of Justice Department memos show Roberts speaking at times in his own voice. In memos to the attorney general or senior officials of the Justice Department, Roberts argued for restrictions on the rights of prisoners to litigate their grievances; depicted as "judicial activism" a lower court's order requiring a sign-language interpreter for a hearing-impaired public school student who had already been given a hearing aid and tutors; and argued for wider latitude for prosecutors and police to question suspects out of the presence of their attorneys.

that say that Clinton will be the last elected President of the United States.

Every clue points to the fact that Bushco wants to change our form of Government to authoritarian corporatist fascism.

We'll see...if this is true, then the most important fight right now, is achieving some kind of guarantee of fair voting, and then voting Republicans out in 2006.

on this political/government hack who wants to be supreme court judge?

surely I hope there will NO democrat apologize.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

voting against him, what can they do to stop his confirmation?

I know, fillabuster, but I'm not sure that will work either! If they manager to stop the confirmation by Oct., Shrub will simply appoint him during the Dec. recess, won't he?

We need to get this info spread far and wide, along with numerous other relevant bits.

If this guy gets in there, I think he's gonna make Scalia and Thomas look like a couple of "libruls."

more at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8719622/

Papers show Roberts influence in Reagan era
Nominee shown as an advocate of ex-president's conservative agenda
Updated: 5:07 a.m. ET July 27, 2005

WASHINGTON - Newly released documents show that John G. Roberts Jr. was a significant backstage player in the legal policy debates of the early Reagan administration, confidently debating older Justice Department officials and supplying them with arguments and information that they used to wage a bureaucratic struggle for the president's agenda.

Roberts presented a defense of bills in Congress that would have stripped the Supreme Court of jurisdiction over abortion, busing and school prayer cases; he argued for a narrow interpretation of Title IX, the landmark law that bars sex discrimination in intercollegiate athletic programs; and he even counseled his boss on how to tell the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s widow that the administration was cutting off federal funding for the Atlanta center that bears his name.

This guy is scum.

It makes me wonder who Bush's real candidate is.

Lawyers owe a duty of loyalty to their clients, so normally you can't determine a lawyer's personal opinions on issues from the legal memos they write. But, some of this stuff sounds very political. Is this guy a sexists? a racist? (This is not the only indication of a possible problem in this area.) Why would Roberts want to counsel his boss on how to spin the cut-off of funds to the King center in Atlanta? Why is he opposed to Title IX? Was he asked to write memos taking a particular stance on these issues or do the memos really reflect his personal opinions?